Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 33:

In page 31, line 30, after "authorities" to insert "(including suspension of members)".

The proposed amendment No. 103, dealing with disorderly conduct of elected members, gives stronger powers to the chair and the members to impose penalties on members who behave in a disruptive or inappropriate way at a council meeting. Elected members are to be more central to the development and oversight of policy at local level, and it is necessary to provide for a structure that can support the delivery of this wider and more substantial role.

For a council to be effective, its business must be undertaken in a professional and respectful manner. At the moment, there is no effective sanction on a member who is persistently disruptive or abusive at a meeting. At best, the meeting can “name and shame” him or her, and require him or her to leave that meeting. Should the member refuse to obey such a motion, and continue to be disruptive, the final outcome can only be a suspension of the meeting by the cathaoirleach. This may be the intention all along, but it plays into the agenda of the disruptive member. The Bill provides a mechanism section 52(c), in such circumstances, by inserting a new subparagraph (4) into Schedule 10(13), for the council to progressively reduce the expenses of a member where the behaviour persists at a meeting.

On reflection, I consider it appropriate to extend this provision, allowing the members, where the sanctions heretofore have proved ineffective, to remove the disruptive member, initially for between one and three months, and if on return the behaviour is repeated within three months, for further suspensions of between three and six months. Associated with the suspension will be suspension from facilities linked to meetings, including attendance at committee meetings, meetings of municipal district members, automatic right to receive copies of meeting papers, and the right to add his or her name to a call for a special meeting of the local authority. This is a proportionate response to address persistent unacceptable behaviour, and will only come at the end of a process during which the member will have it made abundantly clear to him or her that the behaviour is, and has continued for some time, to be unacceptable.

Elected members who disrupt meetings are doing the public no favour. It may create a few column inches and enhance a profile, but time wasted because meetings are disrupted is a direct cost on the business community and householders who fund the council through rates and the local property tax, and an indirect cost through the delay in the transaction of the business of the local authority. Councillors who have placed themselves in the position of not being able to represent the public or who are a cost on the local authority on account of their own behaviour cannot expect to be funded from public funds. Therefore it is only appropriate that any elected member that has had to be suspended must face forfeiture of his or her representational payment and expenses for the period specified in the motion imposing the suspension.

The proposed amendments Nos. 184 and 185 confirm that the suspension with a consequential cessation of payment of remuneration and expenses for the suspension period will be a reserved function. The proposed amendment No. 33 confirms that the power to suspend a disruptive elected member will also extend to municipal district members’ meetings, as part of the overall provision in section 22 applying a range of provisions in the principal Act to meetings of municipal district members. The suspension from the municipal district members meetings will not exclude the elected member from meetings of the council or committees of the council. The proposed amendment No. 105 confirms that the extension of the suspension power to a committee or joint authority will only allow the suspension to apply to that body itself.

By way of the proposed amendment No. 101, I am also amending the provision in the Bill imposing a sliding scale of penalties to any allowances for expenses incurred by the member concerned, by extending this to now include remuneration. It is appropriate that the application of the sliding scale reductions should apply to all payments to the member who has been sufficiently disruptive to be the subject of this form of censure, and not just expenses. The financial penalties will be incremental and therefore proportionate.

The proposed amendment No. 98 provides clarification that a finding that a member caused a meeting to be adjourned, and which results in a reduction of payments, must have been the decision of a resolution at a meeting. The proposed amendments Nos. 99 and 100 are necessary to ensure the correct drafting references to “sub-paragraphs” rather than “paragraphs”.

The remaining proposed amendments Nos. 96, 102 and 104 are technical amendments consequential to the insertion of new text.