Feargal Quinn (Independent)

I am unlikely to get much support for amendment No. 17. Our usual practice when we are faced with such sections in Bills which deal with the establishment of State bodies is that we go through a song and dance against the ban on elected Members of the Oireachtas. I want to extend that ban to include members of the local authority for a number of reasons. I can already hear a few sighs in the House. I fail to see the rationale for making a distinction between politicians at national or European level and local representatives. One could make a better case for excluding local politicians first as they are more likely to be affected by local issues. We should remember that the most blatant examples of corruption unveiled recently were at local rather than at national level. We should consider that approach for all State bodies. It will not be a surprise to learn that I also raised this issue during our discussion of the Digital Hub Development Agency Bill, although I did not get anywhere with it.

This issue is relevant to the Bill. Tourism is a national priority, but it is a local issue. No debate about tourism is complete without a wrangle between national and local interests because they do not believe they are getting a fair share of the national pot. That is all the more reason to formally exclude from membership any elected member of a local authority. They, by virtue of their membership, could hardly be expected to take a national view at the expense of the people they were elected locally to represent. Recent developments show this would be a good amendment to any Bill setting up a State body. We have a double reason for doing so in this case.