Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 25 Oct 1978

Vol. 308 No. 7

Local Government (Financial Provisions) Bill, 1977: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Seven Deputies, mainly Opposition Deputies, expressed their concern at the abolition of rates which they said would highlight the need for local government reorganisation. This is one of the questions which recently followed on the abolition of domestic rates. There have been two reports—a substantial one in 1971 on local government reorganisation, and subsequently in 1973 under the Coalition Government, there was a discussion document on the subject.

The 1971 document on local government reorganisation was very comprehensive and went into many aspects of the effect of local government organisation on local communities and on the council and corporation areas. This is particularly important when we consider the influence on the Dublin area. In fact the 1971 Report, on page 33, devoted a special section to a proposed new authority for the Dublin area. The objectives were set out fairly clearly. There was an obvious intention that local communities would be involved and consulted. It was said that special steps might well be necessary to secure adequate machinery for consultation with all sections of the population. If—as was suggested in the Report—local functions were delegated to committees, each committee could have its own offices and staff and these could be made the focus of as many public services as possible. It was said further that the committees could be consulted on specified matters affecting their areas and could co-opt representatives of local development associations and other bodies concerned with local economic, social and cultural improvements. The report spoke also of "approved local councils" and, on page 45, dealt with the question of area committees, committees which would have particular responsibility for localised areas within the greater corporation organisation such as we have in the city of Dublin.

These concepts and ideas are as true today as they were in 1971. The discussion document introduced subsequently by the Minister for Local Government in 1973 largely set aside this Report and indicated fairly clearly that the Minister considered that a large and complicated system of authorities on the lines proposed by the previous Government would not be conducive to preserving the personal and human touch that should be a characteristic of local government. Even from the viewpoint of efficiency it was felt it would not be desirable. That is a sufficient indication that a very substantial and comprehensive local government reorganisation document was published by Fianna Fáil in Government in 1971. In 1973 the various suggestions, proposals and other responses that came to that document were set aside. In fact to date nothing has been done.

I am very glad that the Minister, in his approach, has made it quite clear that he intends reviewing these various reports and taking some action in the near future. This is particularly important because there is a special problem in the city and county of Dublin in relation to the meaningfulness of local government organisation. We have a problem of under-representation, of lack of equity with the kind of local government system that operates in the rest of the country and over-centralisation in our corporation.

I am giving the Deputy a fair amount of latitude but I think he is extending the scope of the Bill when he goes into the re-organisation of local authorities and that sort of thing.

The question of removing the rates and the authority which went with the collection of the rates has been raised as fairly relevant and genuine aspects of this Bill. It was in that connection that I was attempting to brief the House.

I agree there is a fair amount of scope in the Bill. But we cannot get into the field of suggesting that there should be greater numbers on local authorities in Dublin and that sort of thing.

I was endeavouring to make a positive contribution in that sense, in that if we look at the number of voters per councillor on a national average, we find that, excluding Dublin city and county, there are approximately 2,030 voters per councillor. In Dublin city we have 8,056 per councillor.

That will come under another Bill. This one deals entirely with the financing of local authorities, the abolition of rates and all within that field. The Deputy knows what I mean.

I am endeavouring to appreciate that, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. When time ran out that evening I had mentioned several aspects of the Minister's speech. I had come to the conclusion that these problems at present visualised by the removal of domestic rates could be ameliorated by taking positive action at this stage, such as reducing the overall areas which come within local government. For instance, there are five-seaters; perhaps one might consider somewhat smaller areas, four-seaters, rendering them more relevant to the local community. I believe also people should be given a consultative status rather than an electoral or voting status in relation to local authorities. Whereas the local organisations suggested that they be built into the structure at local level I believe that a consultative arrangement with local councils and local area groups would be very valuable. Provided local people are given a right of audience on such a consultative basis there would be genuine involvement in the local government process ensuring that Deputies' fears would not be realised. In this respect the Minister has promised early action. I believe it cannot come soon enough for the city and county of Dublin. I believe further that people want to be involved and that it is desirable that new policies be implemented in this area at the earliest possible opportunity.

I congratulate the Minister on the introduction of the Bill which gives effect to historic and decisive actions in removing rates from domestic dwellings. As a complement to this Bill I look forward to an early review of local government reorganisation, particularly in relation to Dublin city and county because it is principally in those areas this problem exists. I look forward also to the inclusion within such reorganisation of some means of recognition and involvement of local community organisations on a consultative basis.

The abolition of rates on domestic dwellings and certain other types of property was something on which all political parties in this House were agreed for a number of years past. As proof of that there were in existence for some years the waiver of rates scheme which exonerated all those of little means. It was of considerable help in easing the burden on those unable to bear it.

The Coalition Government were in the process of eliminating rates. On taking office in 1973 that Government proceeded to remove the cost of the health services from local rates and also certain housing charges. These they made a charge on central funds. In 1977 the Coalition Government displayed their sincerity and earnestness in regard to abolishing rates when, in that year, the Government arranged that the rate demand was reduced by one quarter and it was intended to continue that process of phasing out rates until in a year or two rates were phased out entirely. The exercise was being done gradually and on a planned basis having due regard to all the repercussions bound to arise from such a policy and having particular regard to the effects on local authorities. The Fianna Fáil Government decided it would be a good vote-catching device to wipe out the balance of the rates in one fell swoop, irrespective of the consequences that would ensue.

The abolition of the rates in their entirety on domestic dwellings and certain other types of property became an important feature in the now infamous manifesto. It should have been clear to all right-thinking people that the removal of such a vast amount of money from the coffers of local authorities would have dire consequences. The loss of this revenue would result in a loss of autonomy and independence of action, something councils enjoyed all down through the years and something which was the keystone of their foundation and their continued existence. The strangulation of local government by ministerial decree in this Bill and the cessation of bureaucratic control are now fast becoming a fait accompli. All over the State the last spark of democratic control is fast dying out and will have been successfully quenched by the time this Bill becomes law. When this Bill becomes law local government and local democracy will be as dead as the dodo.

What a previous Minister for Local Government, Deputy Robert Molloy, sought to do in respect of the reorganisation of local authorities, turning these bodies into community councils, mere talking shops, this Minister for the Environment, Deputy Sylvester Barrett, has achieved by stealth, almost surreptitiously, without public clamour or protestation. It does not seem to have dawned on the media, or public representatives, that when this Bill is passed by the Houses of the Oireachtas there will no longer be public representatives. They will merely be puppets of the Custom House. They will not have a bob in local authority coffers to call their own.

Local authorities are now being placed in pawn by the Minister for Finance and, because local authorities will no longer be in control of their own affairs, essential services will suffer. There will be a setback in such services as is evidenced by the circulars emanating from the Minister's office. I refer in particular to the infamous circular H.37/8. Housing is bound to suffer. Local patriotism, civic pride, community spirit, all these things which form such an integral part of local government, are bound to be adversely affected by this takeover by central government. It is important that one should realise exactly what this Bill proposes to do and what the implications are for our people, especially those who believe in the maintenance of freedom of action, local democracy and the right of people to govern themselves, all constituents of the real meaning of local government as it is meant to be.

Central to this Bill is the provision enabling the Minister for the Environment to direct local authorities with regard to the rate which should be struck. It is significant that this direction of the Minister for the Environment will be in consultation with the Minister for Finance. It is reasonable to assume that the power of determining the level of local public expenditure in any local authority area will be determined in future by some faceless principal officer in the Department of Finance. When this Bill is passed the last vestiges of local democracy will have been removed. A secondary, but nevertheless critically important, provision is the clumsy and legislatively inept provision attempting to give to tenants in private rented furnished accommodation the benefit of the abolition of rates, an abolition which, in the normal course of events, would be received directly by the landlord. There is an attempt also to confer on such tenants the right to certain relief but, added to that relief, is the obligation of the collection of the benefit of the abolition. That, mark you, will rest on the tenants.

Two procedural measures are proposed. The first is that local authorities be relieved of the obligation of holding special rates meetings at which formally to strike a rate. Many of us in this House have come up through local authorities and have entered this House by dint of our sacrifice and endeavour on behalf of our people on local councils. I have had the honour to be a member of South Tipperary County Council and Clonmel Corporation and almost all of its subsidiary bodies. I have the honour to have been chairman of Tipperary South Riding County Council on many occasions and mayor of my native town, Clonmel, on many occasions also. For all of us on the local authority the preliminary meetings before the striking of the rate were all important. We would have not merely one meeting but very many meetings before the final rate would be struck and we would exercise our power as members of local authorities to allocate those moneys to the maintenance of the essential services for our people and to the things which they desired to make for a fuller and happier life.

I wonder if the members of local authorities realise that this Minister is saying it will no longer be necessary for them to hold a rates meeting. The implications of that must sink in very fast. The political reality is that this is one of the few reserved functions vested in members of local authorities and it is now being filched from them in this Bill. The Bill proposes to take away from the democratically elected members that right and that is why we in the Labour Party will vigorously oppose this measure.

The other procedural measure is that the county or city manager is no longer obliged to provide for his local authority estimates of expenditure prior to the year in which the expenditure is to occur. In such a situation no one knows where he stands. The implication of this is that local authority representatives will have no initiative in proposing new services, will have no say whatsoever in the provision of services to meet the needs of their people or new courses of action requiring assistance, on the grounds that the manager will be capable of arguing that no provision had been made for them in the rates. Some faceless officials in the Custom House will decide what is best for the people of rural Ireland in the years to come.

This Bill also gives the Minister the power to direct local authorities to strike a particular rate. Heretofore local authorities, in the knowledge that they must face the people in the next local elections, struck a rate which they deemed to be essential to maintain services for their community and to provide for new services. They did this honourably, courageously and generously, without fear or favour. That right is being taken from them. I wonder if they realise it. Do the media realise it? What this Bill entails has not yet come across —the destruction of power at local authority level and the undermining of the rights of the members. If a local authority propose to strike a rate in excess of the direction of the Minister, it will be deemed, as a result of the provision of this Bill, that the rate, which is the legally binding rate upon the property owners in the area, will be the rate as directed by the Minister for the Environment and as indicated by the county or city manager. This provision gives further substance to the charge that the Minister has, in effect, handed over total financial responsibility for local authority finance directly and immediately to the Department of Finance. We have reached dictatorship with a vengeance in this country if this Bill is to be followed through to its logical conclusion.

The irresponsible manner in which a large amount of revenue has been removed from the coffers of local authorities is bound to have very grave implications. It is now evident that this Government have struck a deadly blow against local democracy, a blow from which it will be difficult to recover. Local government, as we know it, is a thing of the past and on all our local bodies there is a feeling of bewilderment, confusion and despair. In the past these authorities could plan for the year ahead, very largely from their own resources. They were aided by State grants. From now on it will be a hand-to-mouth existence. They are now thrown on the mercy of the Minister and his Department for all the essential moneys they require and every new circular which emanates from the Custom House will add to the dilemma of our local authorities and will erode still further the last dregs of confidence and autonomy which remain.

I assert that as a result of this Bill, and in particular as a result of the failure of the Minister to reassure public representatives on this vital question of finance in the running of their affairs, all our local authorities are now virtually in a shambles. If any member of a local authority is asked how he feels about what is going on, he will say that among the members, the officials and all concerned confusion reigns supreme. They do not know where they stand and they look to the future with fear and trepidation. They do not know where they stand in respect of the roads programme, the housing programme, the sanitary services programme or any other essential service. A death blow has been struck at our local authorities. They have been pauperised by Fianna Fáil, denuded of power, respect and authority. They must now go cap-in-hand to the Minister and his Department and they must be greateful for the small mercies they are granted and the crumbs which fall from the table of the bureaucrats in the Custom House, O'Connell Bridge House or the Department of Finance.

From now on the local authorities will be told what to do and if they do not conform the big stick will be used by the Minister and his Department. All local authorities are now beholden to the Minister and his Department for essential moneys to provide the services for the people they represent. Let no one be under any illusion about future policy. I believe that the old adage will apply: the person who pays the piper will call the tune. The boys in the Custom House will never allow our county and city managers or the members of our local authorities to forget that from now on, that is, until the day when life and liberty, dignity and responsibility are again restored to our local authorities. It is the committed aim of the party for which I speak here tonight to undo what has been done in this Bill and to restore democracy to our local authorities.

The Minister has yet an opportunity to assuage the fears of local authority members, to discount what I am saying here tonight when he comes to reply to this debate. He has the opportunity of indicating to the councils that this is but a temporary device, that in the administration of the grants system there will be liberty of action, that they are not being placed in a strait-jacket and that he will devise ways and means of enabling local authorities to provide their own revenue as in the past even if that has to be done by way of lottery. I assert that grants are no substitute for local revenue and never can be. To be able to raise revenue locally with the approval of the people who elect one is fundamental to the life and work of our local authorities. To be able to meet the needs of the people and provide the money for that purpose is the very reason for the existence of local authorities. Take that power away and there is nothing left, nothing but puppetry.

What price the community spirit? What price local patriotism? What price local democracy when Big Brother in the Custom House rules the roost? An allocation of money will be available to local authorities, but we all know that invariably there are strings attached to all these grants; stringent conditions always apply. Certainly, this Bill makes it clear that local authorities will not be allowed to exceed their allocation of money for any particular year. For local authorities to be tied to a grant for an item of expenditure in this fashion is, in ever changing circumstances, to be in an impossible position. They have the obligation to provide for social needs and services affecting the health and welfare of people. They must try to maintain jobs and perhaps try to cope with emergency situations, as can happen from time to time. They must do all this in the operation of the many services to which I refer. To expect a council to operate within the strictures of £x in such circumstances is simply intolerable.

The Minister must remove these shackles. The present situation is stultifying and soul destroying. I submit that very few would be prepared to serve their local authorities or communities in the future by reason of what is happening in this Bill. Heretofore councils did have control over their own affairs. I have already mentioned that they had power to strike the rate and to determine what services would be provided for in that rate. Under section 4, which was called notice of motion, they had power to direct that certain things be done and that the money be provided for these purposes. This was a very effective power in the hands of local authorities, although it was sometimes abused. But many a good job was done under section 4, many a wrong was righted and many an essential service provided. I want to pose the question to the Minister, and I would ask him to reply to me at the appropriate stage, as to what now is the position with regard to the use of section 4.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share