Seanad debates

Thursday, 6 March 2003

Local Government Bill 2003: Committee Stage.

 

10:30 am

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Labour)

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 7, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:

"

Section 217(1)(a) In paragraph (a), delete 'may' and substitute 'shall'.

(b) In paragraph (b), delete '12 months' and substitute '2months'

".

I am trying to facilitate the Government with this amendment. It may be aware that there is a constitutional problem regarding the way the legislation is drafted whereby a Minister can abolish a local authority if it does not adopt its estimates. The amendment would provide that the Minister could if he or she wished hold new elections. The legislation seems to perceive the unelected commissioner as a kind of transitional arrangement, yet the wording of section 217 could allow a situation to arise where there would be local government elections followed by the taking of estimates. A council would be abolished if it did not adopt them. With the current wording a situation could arise where for four and a half years, there could be an unelected commissioner in place. That would be in direct contravention of Article 28A.2 inserted into the Constitution in 1999: "There shall be such directly elected local authorities". The legislation which allows an unelected commissioner to be in place for up to four and a half years is in direct contravention of this article and could be open to a constitutional challenge.

The legislation is almost worded to fit into the Constitution but does not quite go far enough. While it states the Minister "may" hold elections, it does not oblige him to do so. The 12 month gap allowed between elections is too long, My amendment would reduce it to two months. It would oblige the Minister to hold a new election if a council was abolished in order that there would be a directly elected local authority in place and that his actions would not face a constitutional challenge on those grounds. The Minister is dealing with waste charges because they may be thought to be unconstitutional. While I am not a constitutional lawyer, I believe this it is unconstitutional. I am being helpful to the Minister and the Government with this amendment.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.