Michael McDowell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Let us go back to basics here. Currently, it is mandatory to have a public meeting. That is the law. This Bill is changing the law and saying it is no longer to be mandatory to hold a public meeting. That is the purpose of the Bill. The explanatory memorandum makes it clear that it is not intended as a pandemic measure. It is intended to be a permanent part of our law from now on that there is no obligation to have a public meeting. We are then left with the question of who will make the decision as to whether a local authority employs a public meeting, which will be optional from now on, or uses other means such as online consultations, etc.

With regard to displays, county councils can put on a display for the public but cannot have a public meeting. People can go and look at it in the local library. That is not a meeting, and that is the difference here. As Senator Boyhan said, it will make it possible for the executive to choose to have what is in effect a one-way communication in which it presents its plans and says people should feel free to write back to it. That is the kind of method of consultation it could have, whereas what we currently have on the Statute Book is a mandatory obligation to have a public meeting.

Senators Fitzpatrick and Seery Kearney said there is nothing to stop local authority members from having public meetings, and that is correct. As Senator Boyhan said, there is a constitutional right to run public meetings but there is something essentially different between a local Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Green Party, Sinn Féin or Independent county councillor saying he or she is holding a public meeting to discuss the draft development plan and Dublin City Council saying that it, as a body corporate, is having a meeting. I am sure Senator Cummins has a very good relationship with his county executive and it may be that the planners would or would not attend a public meeting that he decided to have in Dungarvan or wherever but I do not think they would go to four public meetings with the same enthusiasm, defending their plans or explaining them in the way the statute now requires.

This is not a specious point. The explanatory memorandum states it is important that this change in the law take place because Covid-19 has happened. That is not a good reason to change the law except on a temporary basis. That is the point being made. Of course we can say there is no point in having a public meeting in some location if it turns out to be a super spreader event. However, the principle in this Bill is intended to be long-term and to exclude the obligation to have a public meeting and instead to effectively confer on the management of a local authority - Senator Boyhan is correct on this - the choice as to how it will communicate with its electorates on planning matters.

Let us consider this matter. This is not an empowering provision. There is nothing at the moment to stop any local authority from consulting as much as it likes, just as the two Senators made the point that there is nothing to stop a local authority member from having a public meeting. There is nothing to stop Dublin City Council from having an online consultation process. It is not being stopped from doing it at the moment. There is nothing to stop these things from happening. We are not empowering anybody to do anything he or she is not entitled to do right now. We are changing the nature of the obligation.The authorities have the right to have online consultations if they like. They can do so at their leisure and pleasure, but they are also obliged to have a public meeting. That is the law. This measure, therefore, is not widening the scope of consultation. It is giving to the executive of a local authority the sole choice as to the nature of the consultation. Why, one might ask, was it considered good legislative policy in 2001 to provide for a public meeting? Surely the only reason it could have been considered a good idea then, and before then, was to ensure the process of consultation would not be, in reality, a kind of one-way street in terms of information and that feedback would and could definitely be given at a face-to-face meeting with the people propagating the local authority measure.

I consider Dublin City Council as a citizen of Dublin. There was a proposal to build a white-water rafting facility for between €20 million and €30 million. I do not know what Senator Fitzpatrick's position on this subject was when she was a member of the council. The proposal did not come from the councillors but from the executive.

Curiously, it is all very well for Senator Boyhan to say all councillors get on very well with the executive but there is another relationship to be considered in that, if one does not play ball, life is slightly more difficult than if one does. One's projects are brought to the top of the queue and one is given a better hearing if one is seen to be co-operative. There is power play. There is not a one-way street between the executive and the members of a local authority. Everybody knows that. That is why I was very surprised when so many members of Dublin City Council decided to vote for a white-water rafting proposal based on the ridiculous suggestion that it would save money in respect of training members of Dublin Fire Brigade, who currently go to Wales for training. This was the argument advanced for it.