TDs for test of dual mandate Bill - Back to Ireland

MDR

Now after all the excitment of peace marches and such, can I throw some domestic politics into the pot for a change. The whole issue of Dual mandate to my mind really highlights the worst absolutely unapologetic money grabbers who sit in Dail Eireann.

Now I have mixed feeling about TD's in general, I don't subscribe to the maxim that says that a person automatically corrupt/acting out of self-interest if they become a td .... but at the same time I find it very difficult to find any reason past MONEY, as to why anyone would sit in Local Government and the Dail at the same time, surely there is no way you could effectively do both Jobs ?

RTE.ie - Two Fianna Fáil backbench TDs, John McGuinness and Noel O'Flynn, have told RTÉ News that they would like to see the Bill which removes the dual mandate for members of the Oireachtas sent to the Supreme Court to have its constitutionality tested.

They also said they believe there are members of the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party who will contribute to a fund for the Fine Gael TD Michael Ring.

Mr Ring wants to take a case to the High Court in a personal capacity to test the constitutionality of the Local Government Bill.

The Fianna Fáil TDs are meeting the Minister for Local Government at 1.30pm to express their reservations over aspects of the Bill.

gandalf

A TD should only be there for issues which effect the whole country period. There is no way imho that they can juggle local and national issues. This should have been sorted in the last Dail but "Air Failure Fail" bottled the decision because they were beheld to a pack of independent wasters who included Jackie Healy-Rae, Mildred Fox and that idiot from Donegal who got in on the TV mast card :rolleyes:

But now "Air Failure Fail - (flying Ireland to the 18th Century quickly and efficiently !)" are know been impeeded by their own money grabbers :mad: (Yes and the FG ones as well!).

This is a no brainer. TD's should only be allowed to sit in the Dail, Councillers should only be allowed to sit on a local council and MEP's should only be allowed to sit in the Euro Parliment.

I would also like to see the number of TD's halved as I believe we have to many and a limit of 12 years be set as the maximum amount of time a citizen be allowed to serve in the Dail.

Gandalf.

MDR

Worth sending off ?

Dear X TD,

I am writing to you with regard to the recent disclosure in the national press that you support the continuation of the Dual Manadate (ie. the ability of a member of Dail Eireann to also sit in local government). My colleagues and I at the boards.ie political forum have great difficulty in understanding how anyone could possible perform both functions at once.

I am therefore writing to you, hoping you would be kind enough to offer us your perspective on this matter. So that we achieve a balanced view.

bonkey

Yeah...I'd say so. Let us know if anything comes back

jc

MDR

*claps his hands with glee*

I got a response ... should have made it clearer that I was wondering how he found enough time in his week to do both jobs. Perhaps he understood that, but ignored it.

Dear Ray,

Thank you for your e mail. Commitment, perhaps, and organisations. But it
is necessary. This is a small country. Community is important and I am a
community leader, which requires not only that I act as a legislator in the
Dail but that I give leadership and a voice to those I represent- In fact,
many local problems- social housing, bureaucratic indifference, waste of
funds etc - are national problems, even European problems.

Yes all problems are local.

Best Wishes,

John.

gandalf

Nice one.

Yes I noticed he "missed" the real question you were asking.

LOL I love the "community leader" bit

Who was the TD btw ?

Gandalf.

MDR

John McGuinness,

perhaps I should try again.
Opinions on this letter please.


Dear Mr McGuinness TD,

Many thanks for your swift response. I accept that it would indeed be a desireable position, to be able work within the community and at national level, it would achieve a greater level of efficency in public life. I understand that there would be a certain amount of cross-over of work between Local and National Government. Is there sufficent cross over of work between both public offices, to allow you to do both jobs at the same time effectively ?

Are local or national government commiments sacrificed in favour of each other because contraints on your time are too heavy. My reasons for questioning in this vain, is that given that most TD's seem to be kept quite busy by being just TD's, I have difficulty in seeing where you get the time to be a councillor as well ?

mike65

The dual mandate is an affront to democracy. You cant keep your eye on two balls and one or both will be dropped by such TDs. Perhapes the dail would sit more days if TDs were'nt always dashing back to thier constituences to attend "local duties"
which also includes health boards.

Mike.

sceptre

Kudos for asking the (unanswered) question again Ray.

I'd suggest that when you fail to get a definitive answer this time (as I suspect) you simply send a one-sentence question. Or "Can you do both jobs at once? How?" Probably can't do that till the third email though.

MDR

slightly condesending tone .... :rolleyes:

Dear Ray,

Thank you for your e-mail in relation to the Dual Mandate.

I can't comprehend why you would have difficulty in understanding how anyone
could perform the two functions at once.

The County Council work and the Dáil work are complementary. Just simply by
hard work, it is quite easy to perform both of those functions.

With kind regards,

Yours sincerely,


MICHAEL RING T.D., M.C.C.
Fine Gael Spokesperson on Social & Family Affairs

growler

Dear TD,
I guess the problem here is that I don't think you are doing your TD job well and therefore do not believe your already overburdened and underpaid self has the bandwidth to take on all the responsibilities of a second role.
Maybe you could look at a second role during the Dail recess?
Yours etc.

:-)

therecklessone

I'm fully in favour of ending the dual-mandate, but at the same time I can see why some TDs are worried.

Put simply, our system of government allows very little influence for government back-benchers, and also for the majority of opposition deputies. So imagine you are a bog-standard TD, little more than a seat-filler if you will. You've no national profile, no ministerial role, don't even get to open a new shopping centre. Effectively you are a nobody. Now take away the local role that you fill, on council/corporation, and you have very little to offer to the electorate every five years other than your party's record.

To conteract this, why can't a significant reform of the Dail be carried out, reducing numbers if necessary, also addressing the Seanad, be carried out, so that TDs find themselves actually working as national representatives, rather than the current pro- or anti-government fodder that they are.

Any thoughts?

MDR

shouldn't tds be concerned with looking after their consituents concerns at national level ... alot of the them would be involved in Dails sub committees also ?

TBH I have meet my TD's serveral times, and they do genuinely put off air of being busy ...

Annasopra

What about the Dual mandate of being an MEP and TD, surely this is more difficult to actually do as you might have to attend 2 parliaments at once

Victor

Originally posted by MDR
slightly condesending tone .... :rolleyes:
quote:

---

Thank you for your e-mail in relation to the Dual Mandate.

I can't comprehend why you would have difficulty in understanding how anyone could perform the two functions at once.

The County Council work and the Dáil work are complementary. Just simply by hard work, it is quite easy to perform both of those functions.

---

Actually it's a good response (not that I agree with it) as it hints at the number of waster TDs.

therecklessone, whatever the merits of your points, if the TDs had any cop on they could find worthwhile work to do at a national level in reviewing policy and law (ooo, isn't that their job anyway?). Remember some of our property laws date back to 1695 (Statute of Frauds) and older. Other law (Common law, tort, equity) has no statutory basis. There are thirty-something (Dáil only, excluding Westminster) acts covering roads alone. Perhaps codify existing legislation might be a job they could get on with.

therecklessone

Originally posted by Victor


therecklessone, whatever the merits of your points, if the TDs had any cop on they could find worthwhile work to do at a national level in reviewing policy and law (ooo, isn't that their job anyway?). Remember some of our property laws date back to 1695 (Statute of Frauds) and older. Other law (Common law, tort, equity) has no statutory basis. There are thirty-something (Dáil only, excluding Westminster) acts covering roads alone. Perhaps codify existing legislation might be a job they could get on with.

Good suggestion, but unlikely to happen unfortunately. The vast majority of legislation from the Oireachtas is government-driven (certainly the last time I checked, i.e. 5 years ago, we were just ahead of Greece in opposition sponsored legislation making it through parliament). Even deputies from the governing parties find themselves surplus to requirement when legislation is being framed, but highly useful when the Dail vote comes round...

I do believe the committee system has merit, but then the power that Oireachtas committees have has been eroded as a result of the Abbeylara inquiry, and that is a bad thing. Probably no more Dirt-style investigations.

Victor

http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/breaking/2580655?view=Eircomnet

Court rejects challenge to end of dual mandate
From:ireland.com
Friday, 20th February, 2004

The High Court has rejected an application by Mayo Fine Gael TD Mr Michael Ring that the ending of the dual mandate as provided for in the Local Government Act 2003 was unconstitutional.

Miss Justice Mary Laffoy said there was no constitutional guarantee of the right to stand for election to a local authority. She said "that while the plaintiff may understandably feel aggrieved", his argument that the ending of the dual mandate breached his constitutional rights was "untenable".

Section 13 (a) of the 2003 Act amended the Local Government Act of 2001 to disqualify a member of either House of the Oireachtas from being elected or co-opted to or from being a member of a local authority.

Mr Ring's legal team had argued the right to stand for election to a local authority was enshrined in the Constitution. They also argued that the ending of the dual mandate was unconstitutional on the grounds it discriminated against certain individuals, namely members of the Oireachtas, from standing for election.

The State had argued the new laws maximised the effectiveness of persons who were members of local authorities by disqualifying persons from simultaneously being members of the Oireachtas and of local government.

In her 45-minute ruling, Miss Justice Laffoy said Article 28 (a) of the Constitution recognised rather than guaranteed the role of local government bodies, leaving the power to define the role of such authorities to the Oireachtas. Therefore, she said, the right of citizens to stand in local elections was not covered by constitutional guarantees.

The judge also ruled Mr Ring had failed to establish that Section 13(a) infringed his constitutional guarantee of equality, and that he was not being discriminated against because he was a TD.

Speaking outside the court, Mr Ring told ireland.com he was "disappointed" at the ruling, but had no regrets at having taken the case. He said he would now consult with his legal team and announce a decision on whether to appeal next week.

He said he would be standing down as a member of Mayo County Council in June in favour of retaining his Dáil seat.

MDR

A consitutional challenge no less ...
it will keep me chuckling the rest of the night ?

Victor

http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/topstories/2584781?view=Eircomnet

FG's Ring loses dual mandate challenge
From:ireland.com
Saturday, 21st February, 2004

Fine Gael TD Mr Michael Ring yesterday lost his High Court challenge to legislation abolishing the "dual mandate". The abolition means members of the Oireachtas may no longer simultaneously hold seats on local authorities.

Ms Justice Laffoy, in a reserved judgment, said the central plank of Mr Ring's case was that he had a constitutional right to stand for election to Mayo County Council. However, she found, there was no constitutionally guaranteed right to stand for election to a local authority.

The powers and functions of local authorities, including those eligible to be members of such authorities, were matters to be decided by the Oireacthas, she ruled.

The decision means that Mr Ring has to decide whether he wishes in future elections to stand for the Dáil or Mayo County Council.

Mr Ring's challenge arose out of the enactment of the Local Government (No 2) Act 2003, disqualifying a person who is a member of either House of the Oireacthas from being elected or co-opted to, or from being a member of, a local authority. Deputy Ring has been a member of a local authority for 25 years. The court heard some 130 Dáil and Seanad members were also members of local authorities.

In her judgment, Ms Justice Laffoy said the question of whether there was a constitutionally protected right of election to membership of a local authority turned on the proper construction of Article 28a of the Constitution. This article indicated limited constitutional protection for local government and local representative assemblies.

The role of local government was "recognised" rather than "guaranteed". Significantly, insofar as the role of local government was recognised in the exercise and performance of powers and functions at local level, the article stipulated that such powers and functions were "conferred by law".

While the constitutional protection was limited, nonetheless Article 28a contained mandatory provisions which were fundamental in ensuring that democratic representation for local communities was safeguarded. These included that local authorities exist and that they be elected at five-year intervals. Eligibility to vote corresponded with eligibility to vote for Dáil elections.

The judge said Article 16 of the Constitution had been described by the Supreme Court as a constitutional code for the Dáil elections. In contrast, Article 28a only provided for those entitled to vote in a local election (which was only partially provided for) and the maximum term of a local authority. It must be assumed, where Article 28a was silent as to the regulation of local government, that the regulation of local authority elections, including the criteria for eligibility for membership of a local authority, had been left within the competence of the Oireacthas.

The whole thrust of Article 28a was that constitutional regulation of local government was minimal and that regulation was by statute. The judge could not discern any basis in logic for the proposition that the framers of Article 28a, and the people enacting it, intended that eligibility should be regulated in precisely the same manner as eligibility for membership of the Dáil. The two assemblies were not the same.

Article 28a was not open to the construction that there was an implicit right to stand for election to a local authority in terms similar to Article 16.

Ms Justice Laffoy adjourned for a week the question of what orders should be made in the case. Mr Ring said afterwards he wished to consult his lawyers before deciding whether to appeal.