Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)

I expressed surprise earlier that the self-professed parties of reform such as Fine Gael and the Labour Party were opposed to the ending of the dual mandate. I am afraid that on this occasion they are what the Labour Party is pleased to call "the conservative parties".

I do not wish to conduct a seminar on the political philosophy of Garret Fitzgerald, but his excellent book Reflections on the Irish State deals with issues like the dual mandate. Dr. Fitzgerald considers that the combination of the electoral system and the fact that the vast majority of Deputies are also members of councils creates many problems. His primary concern is the knock-on effect for Ministers, up to and including the Taoiseach, who have to spend more time on constituency work than most of their European counterparts. That is not to say that a certain amount of this work is not positively healthy, but it is a question of proportion and balance.

One often hears the adage, "all politics is local", which was thrown at me on a recent local radio programme by a Fine Gael Senator. It is true in the sense that all politics has a local impact, but it is also a bit glib. If all politics really is local, what are we doing in this House and what are our colleagues doing in the Dáil? If we followed that rationale, we would be better off on county and town councils rather than bothering with Leinster House. In this regard, we sell ourselves a bit short because, if we are dealing with all the local politics – and this applies more to rural Deputies and Senators than their urban colleagues – who is dealing with the national or international issues? I am not just referring to Iraq and the Convention on the Future of Europe, but to budgetary matters such as tax and social welfare which affect everybody. Is it not legitimate that voices be heard from every part of the country on the issues common throughout the country rather than just those relevant to particular constituencies?

One can have legitimate arguments about elected mayors. This system clearly works well in some countries, like, for example, France where mayors have considerable prestige. One must take account of the political culture in every country. There is an egalitarian ethos among councillors in this country, much like that of the Presbyterian Church which does not want elected archbishops but rather a Moderator who changes each year. Being chairman of a local authority or Lord Mayor of Dublin or Cork is a fairly demanding job and there are benefits in giving people a term. The system works quite well and is popular. I do not know that there is any public complaint about the existing system. While I accept it is a matter for debate, the right decision has been taken on the issue.

The clauses in the Bill relating to access of Oireachtas Members to local authorities are vague. I hope there will be a more concrete recognition of the locus standi of Deputies and Senators regarding making representations and receiving information and assistance.

My memory of local elections goes back to 1985 when Fergus O'Brien was Minister for Local Government. A reform package is always brought forward just in time for the local elections in an attempt to motivate people, yet when one looks back, one wonders if much has changed. I would like to see more devolution and decentralisation. I do not mean establishing an office down the country to administer something for the whole country; rather, more decision-making powers should be given to local authorities, where appropriate. I have never been convinced of the efficiency of toing and froing to Dublin and the number of bureaucrats involved in matters to do with housing and schools. Central government holds too tight a rein on power.