Barry Ward (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I support the amendment as well. Senator Boyhan mentioned the Dún Laoghaire Harbour Company on which he served a number of terms on the board. When I first became a member of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council in 2009 I was selected by the council at that time to be a member of the harbour board, but before I had a chance to take up the position these Houses changed the law to remove the involvement of local councillors in harbour boards, so I never got a chance to take the seat. That happened just a month after I was elected.

The experience we had in Dún Laoghaire is that thereafter – I cannot speak to a great extent of what happened before that – the members of the local authority, and by extension the population of the local authority area, were excluded from the management of the harbour company. The Minister of State will be aware of what an important asset Dún Laoghaire Harbour is for the local community and for Dublin as a whole. It is an area of enormous historic and heritage importance. During my 11 years on Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, I saw an enormous decline in the management, maintenance and use of Dún Laoghaire Harbour. Part of that is linked very closely to the departure of the ferry service to Holyhead, which cut off a revenue stream, but to my mind there was a body of people who had a real interest in maintaining the harbour in the local authority, who were completely excluded from involvement in it. This is part of a greater malaise at the heart of central government that ignores the capacity of local government to deliver for the local community. It is not just in this Bill, but it is a whole raft of legislation that excludes elected people, including Oireachtas Members. The amendments are primarily about councillors and members of local government. It excludes them from positions like this.

When Senator Boyhan and I were on the council together, he spoke often about conflicts of interest. Officials often talk about a conflict of interest, as if, for example, there would not be a conflict of interest if the chief executive of the local authority was serving on the board. Exactly the same conflict would exist. One would hope it would exist because one would hope that the chief executive would have similar goals and interests in terms of delivering for the local community, although I suppose that is not necessarily true.

There is a problem with the overarching view that somehow councillors do not have something to contribute, that they could not deliver at that level or that unlike officials they would not be able to spot the conflict of interests and excuse themselves, even though they are expected to do so at council level all the time, and they do so all the time.

What these sections and provisions in the Bill ignore is the fact that at local government level, in the 1,000 or so people who are elected to be city or county councillors around the country, there is an enormous body of experience and expertise and perhaps, most importantly, connection to the local area. By excluding them through what is put into section 48 and later sections, what this totally fails to recognise is the added value they could bring to such a board.

I mentioned Dún Laoghaire Harbour Company because I believe that one of the major problems the company suffered from during my time on the local authority was the disconnect with the local authority and by extension with the local community.As a result of that, we saw a harbour in decline. There were major governance problems during that time. I say that in circumstances where I am not pinning blame on any person in particular, but the fortunes of Dún Laoghaire harbour declined significantly over that decade or so. It just so happens that I do not think it is a coincidence that the council and its councillors were cut out of the deal during that time.

We need to have a reckoning with the powers that are afforded to local councillors and local government. We need to recognise the position acknowledged in Article 28A of the Constitution and we need to acknowledge the fact that there is a role for these people. Gone is the day when councillors were people without expertise, education and their own skill set. In fact, councillors have an enormous skill set that is frequently ignored. People of enormous qualification and education will be found on local authorities throughout this country. Even those who are not are generally people of enormous experience. They have something to add to a board like this. It is incredibly myopic, if the Minister of State does not mind me saying so because it is not his fault, to continue with this legislation in circumstances where there is this kind of blanket exclusion of Members of the Oireachtas and members of European authorities and local authorities, which is repeated in much of our legislation. It is an arbitrary "see no evil, hear no evil" approach that totally fails to recognise the role these bodies could have.

The conflict of interest argument does not stand up. It was said already that these are not planning authorities. Even if they were, councillors have been cut out of the deal on planning at local level in any event. If there is a conflict of interest, as does arise from time to time on local authorities, councillors are well able to distinguish themselves from that situation. What is more important, they bring with them expertise and connection to the people who are supposed to be served by MARA and the people who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of the outcomes of these authorities. I support the amendment not only because of that contradictory element but, as a general rule, we are cutting off our noses to spite our faces, if we say councillors can never be involved despite the fact that they have a great deal to add.