Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

One might ask what practical effect such a provision will have. It means whichever function is being performed by the local authority, whether by management or elected members, must be done in a manner which has regard to the reduction of criminality. If planning permission is refused because a local authority believes it would increase criminality in the area, that becomes a criterion to be imported into the discharge of its functions. It can refuse to grant a licence or permit by reference to this criterion. It is not a toothless tiger. It is a public law duty without a private law remedy, and there are many such examples on the Statute Book. They do not mean an individual can sue or seek an injunction to force a local authority to do something. However, they could have other functions, such as allowing a person, in extreme circumstances, to quash a decision by a local authority on the basis that it flagrantly did not have regard to one of its functions.

The provision is not a toothless tiger, even in the legal sphere. It strengthens the hand of local authority members and managers when considering criminality, public order and anti-social behaviour aspects of their work. If a local authority is vested with the right to say yes or no to a public concert in its park, it can look at this and decide it will probably give rise to anti-social behaviour or disorder and refuse permission on those grounds. The concert promoter cannot say it is an unreasonable decision, because there is a clear statutory criterion imported into the discharge of the local authority's function.