Amendment No. 1 is in the name of Deputy Robert Molloy. Amendments Nos. 2 and 5 are related and amendment No. 4 is partly related. It is suggested that by agreement, amendments Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 be taken together.
Local Government (Financial Provisions) (No. 2) Bill, 1983: Committee Stage.
SECTION 1.
There is no agreement.
I said it was suggested.
We would prefer to take each one separately.
We will deal then with amendment No. 1.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 2, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:—
"‘reserved function' has the same meaning as is set out in section 2 (1) of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963;'.".
It is important that these words be inserted in the interpretation and definition section so that there will be no doubt as to the meaning of our subsequent amendments with regard to "reserved function". This means a function which is reserved to the elected members of a local authority. Serious reservations have been expressed on all sides of the House about this Bill because the main provisions are to be executive functions rather than reserved functions. We look upon this as interfering in a real and fundamental way with the power of locally elected representatives. Unless the power to levy charges and decide on the level of those charges is reserved to the members of local authorities a new principle is being introduced to local democracy which we could not possibly support. I am asking in this amendment that the words "reserved function" should have the same meaning as set out in section 2 (1) of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, in order to facilitate later amendments.
I reject this amendment because on a technical point it is far more appropriate to consider "reserved function" in the context of the management Acts rather than the planning and development code. The allocation of responsibility is entirely in line with the existing division of functions in local authorities. Charges are already in operation in the countries and they are operated by the managers within the limits of the estimates as determined by the councils. There have been no complaints about this procedure which has existed for many years and no representations have been received to have that changed.
I would say, on a point of clarification, that there is no question of taking powers away from councils and I believe it is wrong to suggest, as has been suggested, that councils will have no effective control. The manager cannot incur expenditure, whether funded from charges or otherwise, unless it is covered in the estimates provision which has to be approved by the council. The council has wide discretion. It can change estimates; it can delete items in the preparation of estimates, including provisions based on income from charges. Neither are councils tied down to what the manager puts before them at estimates time. They can appoint their own estimates committee and they can have active participation in the preparation of estimates.
The sensible line now is to proceed with the implementations, with the established statutory demarcation of responsibilities to minimise delays and the risk of revenue loss. There is a clear undertaking which has already been given that if it proves unsatisfactory—and I am not convinced that it will — from the viewpoint of the councils, the power to change the responsibility from the manager to the council is there and certainly can be used in due course. The principle and the practice as I have pointed out, at all times, of local charges, is that it will come up for re-examination in the course of reviewing local authority finance and we can certainly have a look at all the points that have been raised but I would suggest that at this time the amendment is not necessary and should not be pressed.
The Minister has responded to my amendment in two ways, one, by stating that it would be more appropriate if the meaning within the City and County Development Act were referred to rather than the Planning and Development Act of 1963. I would be very willing to accept the Minister's suggestion in that regard and he or I could put down an amendment at the next Stage to do just that, to include the definition in the City and County Management (Amendment) Act, 1955. In section 1 of that Act the definition of reserved function is spelt out possibly in greater detail than it is in the 1963 Act but the 1963 Act is the more recent enactment. However, if the Minister considers it more appropriate for my amendment to include the definition of reserved function contained in the 1955 Act I would go along with the Minister's suggestion and we could move from this amendment to the section, if that is acceptable to the Minister.
At this point, as I have said, I feel the amendment is unnecessary and I am determined that the actual wording of the Bill as presented to the House stays.
That brings me to the second part of the Minister's response to what I had to say, in which he sought to give the impression that no change whatsoever is taking place in the law governing the manner in which local authorities carry out their business and also that there is no change in the role of the elected member of a local authority. To the uninitiated one could claim that what the Minister is saying is technically correct but anyone who knows the system and really understands the meaning of what the Minister is attempting to do in this Bill could not agree with what the Minister is saying, that there is no major change. There is a very fundamental change about to take place if this Bill is allowed to pass into law. Up to now revenue expenditure of local authorities has been funded by rates, by grant in lieu of rates from the Department and from miscellaneous receipts, including housing rents and other charges for services which the local authority can apply. Those charges for services which have existed up to the present can be applied as an executive function by the manager. They have never been a major source of revenue for the local authority. In fact, they have been used to bring in very small amounts of money and that has been fully understood by elected representatives. That the decisions have been in the hands of the manager has been acceptable to the members because the charges have never been regarded as a major source of revenue for local authorities.
That is about to change if the Minister is allowed to have this Bill and if, in particular, section 9 is enacted. The obligation which rests on the State to recoup to local authorities an amount in lieu of the domestic and land rates will be removed if section 9 is passed. Then the Minister will be in a position to decide on the level of grant to be made available to the local authorities in each year and in that way he will have full control over the funding of local authorities. There will be no obligation on the Minister to provide any fixed amount. There will be no obligation on him in respect of the moneys recoupable had domestic and land rates not been abolished. The local authority will therefore be denied that positive source of finance in each succeeding year. It is proposed that the charges which can be introduced if this Bill is passed will eventually replace the Exchequer funding of local authorities to a very substantial degree.
So, what we are talking about is a completely new method of local taxation to fund local authorities, not about the old system of a minor charge for services in certain cases. We are talking about the prospect of substantial charges being imposed on householders and other members of the community who individually benefit from the services provided by local authorities. This House must recognise that this is a major change taking place at this stage and that we must ensure that whatever legislation is introduced protects the householder and the community against this type of impositions; that the levying of taxation of that proportion should be rightly a decision for elected members of local authorities. They are the people who represent the local community. They stand for election or rejection and they are charged to defend their decisions in regard to the levying of taxation. The same applies in this House in the matter of national taxation. It is the elected Members of Dáil Éireann only who can decide on the level of taxation to be imposed. The Department of Finance and civil servants in various Departments may make suggestions to their respective Ministers and to the Government but it is the majority of elected Teachtaí Dála who alone can decide on the level of taxation. That principle must be upheld in local democracy. Therefore, it is only the elected members of local authorities who should have the power to levy this new taxation which the Minister is enabling to be imposed locally under this Bill.
It is important that emphasis should be placed on the role played by the elected member of a local authority in the functions reserved to him which no manager can carry out. These functions have been listed and are well known. Because of the proposed change it is essential that this Bill should clearly and unequivocally establish that the levying of these charges, which is a new local tax, should be reserved to the elected members. I am prepared to change the wording to City and County Management (Amendment) Act, 1955, if that is more acceptable to the Minister. We cannot accept the Minister's argument that there is no change substantially. To the uninitiated that would appear to be technically correct but in effect it is not correct because we have here a Bill allowing for a completely new method of major funding by local authorities by way of charging substantial amounts for the services they provide. That has not been the practice up to now and our attitude is based on the existing practice and on what has been the traditional position whereby only very minor charges have been imposed at the discretion of the manager. This is a major change. This function must be reserved to the elected members. We will go into this in greater detail later and explain why we think that is so.
I am disappointed at the Minister's attitude especially when one recalls the statement of the Minister of State, Deputy Quinn, earlier on Second Stage. He said if the majority opinion of this House favoured transferring this function to the elected members, making it a reserved function, he and his Minister would favourably consider that. All the Deputies who have contributed so far and who have dealt with this matter have all spoken in favour of making this a reserved function. All the members of the Fianna Fáil Party are quite clear about that and there is no question as to where we stand. We have our amendments tabled demonstrating we are in business on this particular issue.
All the Deputies from the Fine Gael Party who contributed to the debate said they were very disappointed about this proposal. If the Minister wants the references they are as follows: Deputy Avril Doyle at column 303 of volume 343; Deputy R. Bruton at columns 317 and
383; Deputy Owen at column 405; Deputy Kenny at column 427; Deputy Farrelly at column 430 and Deputy Keating made a qualified reference to it but it could be taken that he is of the same opinion at column 439. The strange thing about this discussion so far is that no backbench Member of the Labour Party has made any contribution in the debate. The chairman of the Labour Party, of which the Minister is the leader, said he opposed the imposition of these charges in the local authority of which he is a member. He made quite sure, however, that he was not present on the day the Bill was offered. My reference is to what he said to the press when interviewed. Apparently there is no great desire on the part of backbenchers in the Labour Party to have these charges introduced. There is no desire on the part of the Deputies who have spoken in the debate and who have expressed serious concern at the levying of the charges being made an executive function.
In view of the fundamental change proposed the response we had this morning from the Minister and the Minister of State is completely inadequate and takes no heed of the views expressed in this Parliment. A statement from the Minister that in two or three years time he will favourably consider doing something else carries no weight whatsoever. We are here enacting legislation and once the House makes its final decision the Bill becomes law and we have no control over the functioning and operation of the legislation. That is a matter to be interpreted by the courts. We have an obligation and a responsibility to ensure that the Bill meets with the wishes of the majority of the Members of this House. Later we shall have specific amendments and we shall go into this in greater detail. At the moment the Minister and the Minister of State are flouting the express wishes of the members of Fine Gael who have spoken on the Bill. We have had only silence from the Labour Party. It is very difficult to assess where this idea came from. If the Minister has studied his papers I am sure he will see it was never the intention of Fianna Fáil to allow the manager to make a decision in regard to the introduction of charges. It is our view that that power should remain a reserved function of the elected representatives and the major change taking place will have to be written into any Bill introduced to bring in charges.
Going back to my original point we are opposed to the introduction of charges if they are brought in merely to supplement existing sources of revenue. If they are brought in as an additional source of revenue we are in favour of them, but it is clear here they will be introduced to supplement revenue. I would ask the Minister to reconsider his decision in regard to reserved functions and accept our amendment.
The Minister said this is a technical amendment and he suggested a possible alternative. I am surprised to hear the Minister say he was determined —I did not take a note so he will correct me if I misquote—to see the Bill through as it stands. If it will not make any material difference then why would the Minister not accept this very reasonable amendment tabled by Deputy Molloy particularly in view of the fact that the vast majority of the contributions here are opposed to this change? In the interests of harmony the Minister should accept something which he himself described as a technical amendment.
Section 9 should not, in my opinion, be the last section. It should be at the beginning of the Bill because it is the section determining the various contributions and the rates being struck. It is the kernel of the Bill. I earnestly appeal to the Minister to accept this very reasonable amendment.
As a member of a local authority I support Deputy Molloy's amendment. If this Bill becomes law as it stands the power of local authorities will be eroded. This has been the function of introducing charges up to now. Recently the rate struck was decided by the managers and now the powers of local authority members are totally eroded. Section 9 of this Bill determines the situation. Members of local authorities will have very little say. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider the position and to accept the amendment. The Fianna Fáil Party in Government did not intend to give these powers to the county managers; it was the intention of the party that the powers should remain in the hands of local authority members. This is what democracy is about, and it should be the wish of everybody, as I am sure it is the wish of everyone in this House, that that will continue.
On Second Stage, speaker after speaker spoke on the lines suggested by Deputy Molloy, who is supported by Deputy Calleary and by me. Speaker after speaker spoke on the position that existed prior to the introduction of the Bill. They all expressed concern and anxiety that that system of the past should continue. The attitude of the Minister and the Minister of State is disappointing. If this Bill becomes law there is no doubt that power will lie in the hands of the managers, and that was made very clear in the discussion in Dublin County Council — to which I referred on Second Stage—when Council members of the Minister's party were utterly confused. I hope the matter will be clarified here today and again I appeal to the Minister to reconsider the position and accept the amendment.
I rise to support Deputy Molloy in this amendment. I say to the Minister that confusion exists up and down the country between managers and members of local authorities in relation to the function. In the circular of 10 May last to local authorities on their functions, there appears to be ambiguity and contradiction, no matter what the Minister of State said on Second Stage. The circular states: "The charges functions assigned to local authorities under the Bill will as executive functions fall to be performed by the manager". The managers will read into that that they have the executive function to put charges wherever they will. The next sentence is: "In practice, however, the amount of revenue to be raised by charges will be determined by the estimate adopted by the elected members and it will then fall to the manager to levy charges accordingly". That sentence also seems to indicate a contradiction, that the members have the power to raise local charges. This is further exacerbated and corroborated by what Deputy Wyse said in relation to the manager of Cork Corporation who requested to raise a certain rate. The members disagreed and voted on the rate that they wished to have. Subsequently the manager did not go along with the elected members' thinking on the matter. The third sentence in the circular is: "It is expected that managers will consult appropriately with their councils in relation to charges which are being introduced". In the situation in Cork as instanced by Deputy Wyse, that does not pertain, and here lies the confusion. On the one hand, managers are concluding from the circular that they have executive functions and, on the other hand, they are being told by the Minister and the Minister of State that the elected members have that function.
Let us have the matter cleared once and for all. We in Fianna Fáil never intended to take the function from the hands of the elected members. The members of every local authority are elected by the people to govern their local areas and if that function is eroded, eventually there will be no point in having local elections because the managers will determine how the local authorities will be run in every urban council, corporation and county council. Therefore, we have justified apprehensions in relation to the seriousness of this matter and we must support Deputy Molloy in asking the Minister to accept this amendment.
I join with my colleagues on this matter. The Minister, a member of a local authority for many years, must be fully aware of the confusion that exists now not alone among members of local authorities but also among managers and county managers. The Minister knows that we have information that city and county managers are at present making arrangements about the introduction of charges for water and refuse collection. Indeed, I have heard it said that they could impose a charge for people employed by local authorities to collect rent from tenants. Members of local authorities believe that their rights to decide what charges a local authority will make are being infringed. A recent case in Cork proved the confusion beyond all doubt. The manager recommended to the council that a charge be made for water supply and refuse collection. All parties by a majority vote rejected his suggestion. Now they are asking me what the position is. Can the manager now override the decision of the council who rejected by a majority vote his suggestion of introducing rates? This pinpoints the confusion at managerial and council level. Can the manager say now to the members of Cork Corporation that this Bill authorises him to introduce the charges? I ask the Minister to give very serious consideration to the amendment put down by Deputy Molloy which I believe clarifies the position. We will have something positive then and we can go back and say to the members of the council that they have the right to decide whether charges are to be made or not and it is not a managerial function.
We are discussing a critical and important point and the Minister must make his position clear on this, the kernel of the Bill. Deputy Molloy pinned his colours to the mast and made his point clear.
The Minister may feel my interpretation of public opinion to be unsavoury but I am sure he will accept that there is a feeling that this move amounts to a reintroduction of rates. That is generally accepted. There has been a lot of discussion and newspaper comment about this matter but I am sure Members will agree if they reflect on this that these charges are wrose than rates. In the case of rates elected members of local authorities had a direct role to play in the striking of those rates.
After listening to the Minister of State this morning I was left in disarray. His explanation may seem acceptable on paper but from a practical point of view it weighs the authority very much in favour of managers in regard to the levying of charges. That is why it is important that the amendment should be accepted. With all due respect to the Minister, and his good intentions of trying to frame acceptable and worthwhile legislation, there is a danger in regard to this. I do not like saying that the Minister is being hoodwinked in some way but at least, perhaps, he is not quite sure about this.
I am perfectly sure.
The Minister cannot be certain because directions have not gone to the managers. He is assuming that all will go well. It would be very presumptuous of the Minister to say he is perfectly sure. Deputy Molloy's amendment would act as a safeguard and strengthen local democracy, something the Minister agrees with. That is most important. I attended many meetings with the Minister of State with residents' associations and others and heard the point made that under no circumstances should any of us permit an erosion of the role of local public representatives. This amounts to passing over the heads of local councillors. The Minister may argue that this will not happen but if he is that sure why is it that he is not prepared to accept the amendment? It is a clear-cut issue. The Minister does not have anything to lose and he would be safeguarding and strengthening local authorities by adopting this. He would not be adding fuel to the doubt that exists in all local authorities. As Deputy Wyse said, this amounts to railroading these charges through.
I should like to make some comments on the section. With regard to the amendment proposed by Deputy Molloy I should like to point out that the Bill does not explicitly mention executive or reserved functions. It will always remain the right of the Minister to decide if the scheme should operate in a way contrary to the intentions of the Bill, namely to give an element of local autonomy. If that happened the Minister could change that into a reserved function without amending the legislation. That is my impression of the provision and it is the sensible way to go about this. There is a danger if we want to put through charges — there will be a need for them — that if we do not have a period when they are brought in through management setting up the structure of the charges and with the councillors deciding the overall level we could have long and tendentious debating on the structure without anything being put into operation.
In the initial period the democratic rights of councillors are protected by the fact that they will always strike the amount in total to be raised from these charges. It would be a very unwise county or city manager who would not listen to the views of local representatives when setting out the details of the charges. When the scheme is in place councillors should have a function reserved to them, perhaps some time in the future, to examine elements of the structural charges brought in by the manager and reform them at that stage.
I should like to clarify a point in regard to the definition of "service". Will the definition as set out in the Bill mean services rendered to a particular premises only such as water or something like that, and not a general public service such as lighting? I find it hard to see it appropriate that a lighting charge should be brought in under legislation like this.
The debate is more appropriate to section 2. The amendment is unnecessary in that the Bill is collectively cited with the local government Acts which contain a definition of reserved function. I can appreciate the Opposition's concern but I ask them not to press their amendment at this stage. It would be more appropriate under section 2 when we can have a fuller discussion.
We consider the whole principle of whether the introduction of charges and the levying of charges is to be a function of the elected members or not to be a crucial part of the Bill. We hold the view that the levying of charges which amounts to a new form of taxation should be a function performed by elected members only. We are opposed to the Bill because it removes the obligation from the Minister for the Environment to recoup fully to local authorities the domestic and land rate reliefs he is required to give under the 1978 Act which abolished rates on houses. I should like to re-emphasise that we are opposed to the Bill because it gives to county managers only the power to introduce charges and decide the level of new charges to be applied.
We are also opposed to the Bill because it gives sole power to county managers to decide the terms of the scheme under which the collection of charges could be dropped in hardship cases. It is clearly the Minister's intention to cut back severly on State grants to local authorities and that will have a chaotic effect on local authority services. It will affect in a serious way the level of employment in each county council and corporation area. The Bill diminishes the role of local authority elected members and is the most serious threat to local democracy since the State was founded.
Only local authority elected members should make the decision to introduce major new local taxation measures such as charges for services. We also believe that elected local authority members should decide the terms of the scheme to drop the collection of charges on hardship grounds. If the Bill is allowed pass in its present form it will extend central control over the operation of each local authority and reduce the role of local authority elected members to being merely rubber stamps.
The proposals contained in section 9 will alter in a fundamental way the method of financing local authorities. At present the revenue expenditure of local authorities is got from rates, State grants and miscellaneous receipts accuring from such items as housing rents and other charges for goods and services. State grants at present must include an amount equal to the rates relief on houses and land. These grants have provided the major proportion of local authority revenue expenditure since 1978. Even so, local authorities have experienced financial difficulties. If the Minister's obligation to recoup domestic and land rates is removed altogether, as proposed in this
Bill, then the financial position of local authorities will deteriorate rapidly. The annual Department of Environment grant will be an arbitrary one. The local authorities will be in the vice grip of the Department of the Environment. This House should protest and unanimously oppose this move.
We are on amendment No. 1 and the Deputy has gone outside the scope of it.
I am on the functions in relation to amendment No. 1.
The Deputy must keep purely to the functions.
The media have paid scant attention to the real intention in this Bill. There is a lack of understanding in the community at large in regard to the intentions contained in this Bill. If the Bill is not changed today it will be too late. There is very little point in the Minister saying that he will review it in two years' time or Deputy Bruton or his colleagues accepting this Bill in this form on those type of assurance which do not mean a thing, as we know in this House. We are making law here; we are not making promises which might or might not be fulfilled at some time in the future. Now is the time to ensure that what we are writing into the law of the land is what the House wants. We should not accept something we do not want on the basis that the Minister might change his mind when he sees reserved function rather than an executive function. We are making the legislation now and now is the time to make the decisions.
The double talk the Minister has indulged in has fooled many of the Fine Gael members. Unfortunately, the county councillors around the country do not yet know the full effect of this Bill. They do not understand the effect it will have on local democracy and on their role as elected members in local authorities. I do not like accusing the Minister of double talk. All I can do is to go back to his speech when he introduced this Bill to the House. He said:
The basic responsibility for deciding on the amount to be raised by charges will fall to be exercised by the council members...
That is not true. The decision is a managerial function under the existing law. We want the existing law changed and put this way:
The basic responsibility for deciding on the amount to be raised by charges will fall to be exercised by the council members.
We should make that the law. We do not want anything more added to that sentence. The statement I quoted from the Minister's speech cannot be accepted at its face value unless this amendment and the other amendments which we will be moving later are accepted. If they are not accepted then it is a function of the managers. When I say double talk I mean exactly that because in the next paragraph the Minister, ignoring what he said in the first paragraph, said:
It will be the function of the manager to give effect to those decisions in terms of the specific levels of charge to be applied.
That is a lot of mumbojumbo. The newspapers took it that the elected members would have the power to decide these charges. The editorial in The Irish Times, which appeared after this debate took place in the Dáil, questioned if my interpretation of this Bill was correct. The editorial said that if the Fianna Fáil spokesman was correct in his interpretation of the Bill the introduction of these charges and decisions in regard to the level of charges being a managerial function then the Minister has some explaining to do. The Minister has a lot of explaining to do in relation to the confusion which he has created, possibly deliberately, throughout the country and in particular since those statements were being made at a time when the local authorities were considering the estimates for 1983 and were faced with making decisions. It was clear to me, because I studied the matter in some detail, that councillors had absolutely no power whatsoever regarding the charges which would be levelled in their local authority areas and that the managers ruled supreme in this matter. Many of the managers did not state that explicitly and unequivocally to their members at that time because the matter had not yet become law. There was no great desire to expose the real intent behind this Bill at that time. There was an effort to shuffle along and get the estimates adopted for 1983. The Bill would be passed after that and next year they would rule with the iron first. The county managers would decide the level of charges to be made.
The managers in rural areas, if this Bill remains as it stands, can decide that the charge for water will be £100 per dwellinghouse and £100 per trough in every field of every farm in the country. The members can come in and protest all they like and say that it is unfair to charge £100 for every trough when all the small farmers will have more troughs than the larger farmers and will not be able to pay this money. They can protest that it would be a terrible imposition on those people but the managers can say: "I am sorry but in my judgment this is the way it shall be. Under the Act, which the Dáil passed in June, I am given those powers and I am proceeding accordingly". The members at local authorities' meetings can protest all they like but they do not have the power to change this. If we are going to sit here and allow that type of law to be introduced without protesting, we do not deserve to be here.
We have had the extraordinary spectacle where speaker after speaker on the Government side, members of the Fine Gael Party, have stated exactly the same views we are expressing. There seems to be unanimity on all sides of the House that this power should be a reserved power for elected members of county councils. The Minister has offered as a sop to the Fine Gael members, upon whom the extent of the provisions in this Bill only dawned very recently that it might only be a temporary measure, that he is very disposed towards reconsidering his position in one year's time or two years' time. That is not worth a thrawneen, as they say in my part of the country. The important task is to ensure that whatever is written into the law is the right thing. We cannot write in ministerial hopes and wishes. They do not count for anything. Even when the Bill is passed the Minister's interpretation of it will not count for anything. It will be up to judges, who will look at the cold print. They will adjudicate that the Oireachtas gave this power to the county managers and denied it to the local elected representatives.
In that way the role of county councillors and the corporation members throughout the country is being denigrated and their authority is being diminished in a very fundamental way. Whatever complaints county councillors and corporation members have had since 1978 regarding the financial difficulties that have arisen they will pale into insignificance when this new regime is imposed on them. In future there will not be any obligation on the Department of the Environment to give a grant to a local authority based on any particular matching. There is no obligation to relate it to the amount which might have come in by way of domestic rates or land rates. That is being wiped out in section 9 of the Bill. The Minister can then allocate a sum to a local authority which could leave a very substantial shortfall. Then the local authority are obliged to make up the shortfall by the introduction of charges. If the members refuse to do this the manager has the power to impose the charges.
That is the intention contained in this Bill. We see it as a fundamental issue. We appeal to the Government to have a rethink on this. Who is rushing this aspect of the Bill through? Who is it who wants the Bill in this form? It would seem to me to suit more the views and wishes of the bureaucracy in the Department of the Environment rather than its political head. I am surprised that the Labour Party are going along with this type of imposition, allowing local authorities to be destroyed in this way because that is what will happen; make no mistake about it. There has been a gradual erosion of the role and importance of the elected members at local authority level in recent times. However slow and gradual that erosion may have been, it will now take a major leap forward if this Bill goes onto the Statute Book in its present form.
We are still only on section 1 and dealing with my amendment on that section. It is crucial to the whole thrust of our opposition to this Bill. I cannot withdraw the amendment, as requested by the Minister. I shall have to stand over my amendment because it is important at the very outset to establish what we mean by "reserved function" and have it written specifically into this Bill. It is crucial to the whole intent of the Bill that that aspect be written in and clearly understood at the outset.
Like previous speakers, I am very concerned about this Bill. There is no doubt in my mind but that the powers of elected representatives will be eroded under its provisions. I take great exception to the Minister having notified city and county managers earlier in the year, informing them that he would be introducing a Bill later in the year and instructing them to go ahead and make provision for these charges. That was wrong. This House and its members should have been the first people to have been made aware of it and the first people to have been afforded an opportunity to discuss it.
The reservations of all concerned are becoming very clear here today. We have had a discussion on this matter in Cork when it emerged that it was not alone Members on both sides of the House who did not accept the provisions of the Bill, did not think it was in the best interests of the people or public representatives, but these reservations were shared by members of the Minister's Party. It is my opinion that this Bill is the brainchild of the County Managers' Association. For a number of years they have been advocating local charges in order to render their job easier. It should be remembered that it is very easy to do a good job when one has plenty of money. It is in difficult times now being experienced here in all authorities, not alone local authorities, that the real mettle of managers should be seen to be operating. It is my view that they are not the Minister's ideas being put forward here today but those of the county managers and I reject that totally out of hand. There is no doubt but that the powers of local representatives are being eroded under these provisions.
Where will such charges stop? In Cork this week the city manager decided to increase the charge for parking discs from 10p to 20p. One wonders what it will be next week. We have genuine reservations and fears about the provisions of this Bill. I would ask the Minister to examine the amendment and ensure that public representatives have an input.
In Cork we questioned the legality of the manager bringing in an estimate, including charges because, when rates on domestic dwellings were abolished in 1977, people paid extra taxes in order to offset the deficit created by their abolition. Will those taxes now be levied somewhere else or will people be expected to continue to pay the taxes imposed then and meet these new charges as well? It constitutes a backdoor method of imposing additional charges and finding money for the deficits existing in local authorities throughout the country. That is wrong, the Minister should realise it, face up to that fact and to the managers themselves. They have a job to do, as have the rest of us. The power of elected representatives should be reinstated. However, it has not been spelled out for us here today and I would ask the Minister to bear my contention in mind.
A number of points have been made far beyond the reaches of amendment No. 1 to section 1. I should like to clarify them briefly because we shall be discussing various points as we progress through the Bill.
One thing I find rather amazing here this morning is that people do not seem to realise the situation in which local authorities find themselves and the difficulties they encounter. Deputy Molloy commented that Ministers' promises or assurances do not stand for much. I am not in the business of making promises. I wonder where was the concern in 1977 because we would not be here today putting this bill through the House had not local authority financing being sold off in an election auction in 1977. That is what brought us into the present shortfall in finances for local authorities.
Is the Minister against the abolition of rates on houses?
When one removes one system of financing it has to be replaced by another. That is quite obvious. Obviously in fulfilling election promises nothing like that was thought out or given full consideration.
The Minister's partners in Government had a total commitment to it also.
The luxury of being a new Deputy. I find Deputy Molloy's concern about cutbacks in the rates support grants also very difficult to understand. When we came into office this year his party in Government had provided £138 million for domestic rate grants for 1983. This represents a reduction of 11 per cent in rate poundages on domestic property. Therefore how can he now criticise us for failing to fully recoup domestic rate reliefs when we increased that sum of money by £31.5 million for rates support grants for this year, which provides for an increase, though modest, of 5½ per cent in rate poundages on domestic property for 1983?
Deputy Molloy also contends that the charges to be imposed under the provisions of this Bill represent a large increase on nominal charges currently being levied by managers. I must refute that. The charges now envisaged are generally in line with those which have been levied for many years in many county council areas.
There is no limit.
It has not been abused in the past.
It was not there in the past.
The power is the same as was there previously. I must say that very clearly.
One could not charge for water in urban areas.
Yes, and they are now getting that power to coincide with county council powers.
There is no limit on the amount of the charges.
With respect, I did not interrupt the Deputy and perhaps he would allow me continue.
It is a question of whether in practice, the councils find that they want to charge because of difficulties of operation. I think it argues for a period of trial of a continuation of the established system. Deputy Molloy asked if I had looked up the files in the Department. I have and certainly there was nothing in them which indicated that any change in the system of responsibilities would have been brought in had Fianna Fáil remained in office.
That is not so.
That is correct. The status quo has been maintained and that is my intention.
In relation to the situation brought up in Cork Corporation, my understanding is that there is a global provision in the estimates for 1983 to cover income from charges. Obviously there was confusion at the time — because the Bill had not been through the House — but the manager has made a provision and he will have to realise that sum of money during the course of the year. It was not spelled out in detail but that sum of money has been provided in the estimates which the corporation accepted. The final power is with corporation members in accepting the estimates.
The figure concerned is the deficit outstanding in Cork. It has nothing whatsoever to do with providing additional services which is what this Bill is all about.
I have said at all times that there is no change proposed. I spelled out in detail in my introductory remarks on this Bill that we are giving the power to urban authorities. I and other members in this Chamber who have served on rural county councils are well aware that there is no change whatsoever from the present situation whereby the level of charges is fixed by the managers in line with the estimates provision approved by the council. The ultimate authority lies with the members of the council when they come to the preparation of rates. Any of us involved in the preparation of rates should be well aware that there are a certain number of areas in which money can be realised.
It would not be necessary to look for any charges if the proper funding of local authorities was allowed to remain intact as it was prior to 1977. It would be foolish for us not to realise that local authority funding has been slipping away since 1977. That was when problems began to start for local authorities and I have said on numerous occasions we canot allow that situation to continue. There has been much talk about reforming local government. It has now come to the stage where it is vital to strengthen and revitalise the whole system of local government and particularly its financing. This is essential if we are to retain local democracy.
When I introduced the Bill I said this was not the panacea for all the ills of local authorities but at least it is an attempt to make up the shortfalls that have been allowed to develop in the system. Another point raised was that the existing charges have been nominal and have not been of major significance. Some £40 million was raised in the past 12 months in local authority charges.
Not for water.
For services generally.
It was rents on houses.
The target in the budget this year was set at a sum of £65 million. The charges as envisaged will not be outlandish and will not be a severe burden. I have tried to clarify the points that have been raised. I am rejecting the amendment——
Will the Minister please answer my question? Is it a reserved or managerial function?
The status quo in relation to the present system of raising charges in local authorities is being maintained. The power is being widened to include services which heretofore have not been included.
The Minister is just conjuring with words.
I am not sure if the Deputy has been involved in the preparation of estimates at local authority level——
For the information of the Minister, I have been a member of Dublin Corporation for many years. I have also served in the Department of the Environment.
I respect the experience the Deputy would have gained in that body with regard to the preparation of estimates. Dublin Corporation will be given wider powers and the manager, with the members, has to agree the estimates. If the members object to the raising of charges, they will have to point out to the manager where the money can be raised. That is the crux of the matter.
I asked a straightforward question, if this is a managerial or reserved function. That is what our amendment is about.
The amendment is to define the reserved functions or otherwise.
I want to know if it is a reserved or managerial function.
I think the Deputy is being facetious.
That is not so——
The Deputy must accept that the basic decision in the preparation of the estimates is the decision of the council. They have to be accepted by the council. The charges will be prepared in the context of the estimates and if the council do not accept them they can reject the estimates. I am maintaining the status quo in relation to the present situation in county councils and the urban area authorities are being given powers they did not have up to now.
Is it not a fact that when the council come to consider the estimates the amount of grant they obtain from the Department will play a major role in deciding the amount of money to be collected locally by way of charges or otherwise? In other words, the Minister's decision in regard to the grant which his Department make available to a local authority is the crucial point. To use the Minister's own words, it is facetious of him to seek to convey the impression that the elected members will play any great part in determing the balance to be made up. His decision regarding the amount of grant which his Department make available will determine how everything else falls into place.
The whole idea of giving local authorities power to introduce charges for services was acceptable generally when it was first mooted on the basis that this would be a source of additional funds to local authorities and that it would not be used to replace existing sources. That is where this Bill falls down and it is why Fianna Fáil are taking a strong stand against it. It is not the kind of measure we would have introduced had we stayed in office.
Anyone who studies this Bill in an effort to understand its effect will have to understand the significance of section 9 where there is no obligation on the Minister in future to provide any set amount to any local authority. It has been said that it has been the practice of local authorities to introduce fairly reasonable charges but that will not apply in future. If the Minister in the future decides to reduce the amount of direct grant, there is no obligation on him to give local authorities an amount in lieu of any item. If he gives a local authority £1 million this year he can decide next year to give only £500,000 and let them make up the balance by way of extra charges for services. The Bill will allow this to happen in the future.
If the Minister gets his way members of local authorities will not even have the power to decide the amount of charges. They will be turned into useless rubber stamps and many people will decline to serve on local authorities if their powers are diminished in this way. It will be a useless exercise to attend local authority meetings and go through the motions of bringing forward local problems if major decisions in relation to the operations of the authority rest solely in the hands of the Minister and the manager and where the other people are only brought along for the charade.
Deputy Brady asked a question but he did not get an answer. The Minister said provision will be made in the estimates for these charges. If the council disagree with the manager can he bring in the charges irrespective of what the council decide? Secondly, do the council stand in danger of being dissolved because of their failure to strike a rate? That area has not been clarified and I should like the Minister to reply to my question.
There is no change in the present situation.
We are dealing with legislation. It is not the existing situation. We are talking about new charges. Will the council be in danger of being dissolved if they do not strike the rate which includes new charges which the Minister is empowering the manager to introduce?
If the council reject any provisional charges brought forward by the manager, the obvious thing for them to do is to knock out that part of the expenditure. I assume a manager will not introduce charges just for the sake of imposing charges. Obviously they would be for the purpose of maintaining employment or the provision of services. If the council reject whatever sum has been put into the estimates to be raised through charges, they can strike out the services that would have been provided by way of the charges.
Can the manager bring in charges irrespective of the decision of the council?
The manager cannot undertake any expenditure that has not been approved by the council.
At present the manager can bring in charges without the sanction of the council and I gave the example where the figure was increased by 100 per cent and the council were just notified of that fact.
The Minister was not aware that I played some part in Dublin Corporation. I am well aware of the lengthy estimates meetings that went on.
I was not aware of that and I apologise if the Deputy has taken me up——
I appreciate that. I am sure the Minister will agree that you would want to be a qualified accountant to play an effective part at any local authority estimates meeting. You would want to go into the inner sanctum of any local authority and to spend hours looking through the books if you were to play an effective part in the costing of any estimate. That is acceptable: a local authority member must take a lot for granted.
If the Minister says charges have to be made if there is a shortfall, unless the councillors have a direct role to play at that level their authority will be usurped. That is the great danger in this Bill. Deputy Molloy made that central point. There is no question here of any personal attack on any Member of the House on this issue. We are concerned about the framing of the legislation. We have participation by nearly 60 per cent bureaucrats in the running of the country — a comparable figure in the US is 22 per cent — and if we are aiming at streamlining local authorities, this Bill, at one fell swoop, will disinfranchise local authority members. This is a grave danger.
The Minister was wrong in his opening comments because he appeared to engage in a party political speech, harping back to the abolition of domestic rates in 1977. For heaven's sake, if the Minister has any doubt about that inequitable system of local rates as it applied in any city or town, why not just reintroduce domestic rates rather than point back to a system which he thought to be wrong at the time? Every Member of the House wants to safeguard the position of local authorities and the Minister has absolutely nothing to lose by accepting the amendment, which will not dilute the efficiency of this Bill. Therefore, why not accept the amendment. Every councillor in the country is looking to the Minister, so why can he not give them that protection? I appreciate the excellent backup and advice the Minister is getting from the Department but there is another side to the democratic coin, the 40 per cent of the people who are not involved in the bureaucratic process. The Minister in this section is eroding that further.
I join in the requests to the Minister to accept the amendment. So far he has made our case for it. He spoke about strengthening and revitalising local authority finances. As Deputy Molloy said, the Minister and the Department will set the guidelines for the charges. There is not a doubt about that — it will be done under section 9. If the Minister makes a block grant it will set the guidelines for the various charges that will be made by local authorities, and local authority members would not have any option but to agree to extremely heavy charges. I am asking the Minister to ensure that the charges will be a reserved and not an executive function. In the Cork case it would appear that the manager will just make the charges. The manager in Mayo has said that he has the right to make the charges if we do not agree to the various items in the various programmes of which there is no estimate. It is just a shortfall. He has allocated £X to each of the various programmes. Ballina UDC were just presented with a sum of £96,000. We had no say in how or where that money would be spent. There was a shortfall of £96,000 and that would come from charges. We reduced the estimate somewhat and will be meeting shortly, with the Minister's consent.
It is the block grant that will determine the charges. It should be made clear to everyone that what is being enacted today will not give extra powers to local authority members to put on charges so that they can get extra services for their own areas. This provision is to make up revenue which should have been coming to councils under the 1978 Act. Members of local authorities cannot give in on this. The only way the rights of local authority members can be safeguarded is acceptance by the Minister of what he calls this technical amendment. The amendment has the backing of the vast majority of Deputies who have spoken.
I do not want to be political but the members of the Minister's party, particularly in Kildare during the last election, issued a circular saying that there would not be any charges for local services. That brings us back to the abolition of domestic rates in 1977. Once and for all, will the Government forget about that? If they feel that the abolition of rates was wrong, as Deputy Brady said let them reintroduce rates and finish with it, but let the Government stop the codding and the nonsense. They had actually begun to abolish rates. All of us then accepted that the rating system was inequitable. This Bill is a reintroduction of rates under a new guise, pretending that it will give extra power to local authority members. It will not.
We could debate this section all day. I am sure the Minister knows of our sincerity in this matter. We are expressing the views of members of local authorities throughout the length and breadth of the country. The Minister assured us that the status quo will be maintained. Council members, therefore, ask what is the reason for the Bill? If the status quo is maintained and if the council have the power to run their own authority as they wish, why are we talking about this Bill? Councillors are suspicious about this Bill. They believe there is something sinister about it, that something is being taken away from the democratically elected members of the council. I want clarification on one of the points raised by the Minister of State. Did he not say that if it was found that the powers of local authority members were eroded the Minister would take action?
Yes.
This proves there is something in what I am saying. Why is there talk of the powers of the authority being eroded and the Minister intervening to ensure that their democratic rights are maintained? This point struck me very forcibly when the Minister of State was replying. We are establishing that there is confusion in this area. Why should council members misinterpret the Bill? If the council lose their authority we are guaranteed that the Minister will intervene. To my mind this will create confusion. In my view the Minister is saying that our amendment is correct. Why not accept our amendment which will enlighten every member of a local authority?
I want to make a final plea to the Minister to accept Deputy Molloy's amendment. There is deep confusion in this House——
Not on this side.
Yes, on all sides. It was mentioned that there could be something sinister in this Bill because it creates confusion and is very ambiguous. I notice no Labour backbencher spoke on this measure. This leaves one with the justifiable impression that when the local elections are held next June — if they are held next June——
They would never attempt to postpone the local elections, although they would try a lot.
I will read the files from Deputy Molloy's time.
——members of the Labour Party canvassing for the local elections can say they did not put on these local charges, that it was an executive function. Clearly this ambiguity is undesirable to everybody in this House except the Minister and his Minister of State. Many Fine Gael backbenchers agree with this side of the House about this. This confusion can be arrested if the Minister accepts Deputy Molloy's amendment. If he does not do that he can, as Deputy Brady and others said, reintroduce rates. It is as simple as that.
I want to say something now that the Minister and his Minister of State are present. I do not mean to embarrass the Minister of State but this cynical exercise which I have sat through for the past 45 minutes appears to be another example of Government by hit and miss. If local charges are to be interpreted at what I would call the Minister's whim, whether he would interpret their powers to be eroded in any way if this legislation is implemented, the Minister nodded and agreed to it and——
He was not referring to any whims.
I will put it another way. If it was the Minister's interpretation that the powers of city councillors or members of local authorities were being eroded in any way he would take steps to alter that. Is that correct?
That is what I said at the end of the Second Stage.
And it is what he nodded to. If that is the case that is the most tenuous form of legislation any government could put their name to. On many occasions, as the Minister will agree we held firm on this throughout our constituency. We gave categoric assurances that under no circumstances would powers be taken from local authorities. It is very fine for the Minister to laugh and take this exercise in a cynical way, but the fact is that local councillors are looking to this measure today and feel their powers are being eroded. Firm assurances were given that this would not happen. We even spoke about splintering city councils into smaller units, to establishing on a pilot basis the Rathmines Council, the Dún Laoghaire Borough Council and a council on the north side of Dublin, to give councillors more local and effective powers. That is getting down to the very essence of local democracy. All that is gone. That is fair enough, because that is one of the prices one has to pay in a narrowing band of the democratic process. It is becoming more and more difficult to govern as the bands of tolerance became so narrowly divided. Our legs are constantly being cut from under us by the Goliath of bureaucracy. It is bureaucracy run riot. What is happening here today is a further swipe at wiping away the powers of local councillors. That is how serious the situation is and that is why I am in this House today. No matter how finely worded or glossed over it can be, it is a grave disservice to local democracy.
Regretfully and lamentably may I say it is my interpretation that the Minister is holding firm on this one, but what has actually percolated out of his contributions and, indeed his Minister of State's contribution, is that it is to be a watch, wait and see how it works situation. That is just not good enough. The Minister of State, Deputy Quinn, says there is no confusion on his side of the House about whether the local powers will be usurped from city councillors. He is definitely not in touch with members of the Government or, indeed, with members of Fine Gael and Labour in making such a statement. If there is any measure of doubt left, my last appeal to the Minister is to agree to this amendment. There will be no loss of face whatsoever. It will strengthen the legislation if anything.
I should like to reiterate my earlier statement and to assure Deputy Brady that it would not be my intention to issue directives on the basis of whims. I would not consider myself to be a whimsical person. He described what is being done in this Bill as a swipe at the democracy of local authorities. If he considers I am doing that, he should have stood up and spoken when the sledgehammer was being wielded in 1977. I thank Deputy Fitzsimons and Deputy Molloy for their concern about Labour Party backbenchers and their contributions, or their activities, or otherwise. Fianna Fáil seem to pay great attention to them when the Labour Party are in Government, but we never hear about them from Fianna Fáil otherwise.
What does that mean?
I should like to clarify what is happening and what the intention is. The amount of money to be raised by a local authority is governed by the estimate adopted by that authority, and the adoption of the estimate is exclusively the function of the elected body. By the exercise of this function the elected members can determine the policy which the manager will have to follow in regard to charges, and the limits within which he will have to work. The implementation of that policy within the limits of the estimate provisions will be an executive function.
That is the rubber stamping bit. Nobody believes what the Minister is saying.
In relation to the rubber-stamping comments, the Deputy will recognise that for the first time since 1977 local authorities have power to strike whatever rate they wish this year. Under Fianna Fáil it could be said that the estimates meetings were hardly worth attending because there was no authority or power to strike a rate. Most councils adopt a practice whereby estimates committees are established to go through the finances available in preparation for the estimates. That is the effective method by which the level of charges can be set out. Then in consultation with the estimates committee it is the manager's function to prepare the estimates along the lines he is directed to prepare them.
We are working along the traditional lines of the division of functions within the local authority, as has survived very well in the county council area over the past number of years. I do not think it has given rise to any serious difficulties. I have had no complaints about how it works. We are talking about a sum in the region of £20 million out of a total budget estimate of roughly £1,000 million for local authorities. I am rejecting the amendment.
I do not think there will be any further contributions on this amendment from the Fianna Fáil Party. We have stated our position on it. The Minister continues to make what I consider to be misleading statements about the effects of this Bill. To throw in the figure of £20 million at this stage seems to me to be done to give the impression that we are talking about very small money, and that it will always remain small money. If the Minister considers £20 million to be raised by way of charges in 1983 small money, so be it.
There is no limitation in any section of the Bill on the amount of money which can be raised in any future year by way of these charges. What might be £20 million in 1983 could very easily become £200 million in 1986. That is the danger contained here because of the changes the Minister is proposing in section 9. As this is only an interpretation or definition section, we do not intend to spend any further time on it. We will have to come back when our main amendment with regard to reserved functions is being discussed.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
On section 1, I want the Minister to clarify whether the charges will be confined solely to services provided to individuals. Many people would like the Minister to give a fuller definition of services in this context. I am sure the Minister has received a circular from the Confederation of Irish Industry. They are concerned that the charges proposed in this Bill may apply under the Water Pollution Act in relation to the discharge of effluent. They posed some questions which I should like to put to the Minister at this point. I am sure he has been acquainted with them.
One is whether power here will be limited to specific services, or whether the discharge of an effluent from an industrial plant for which charges can be levelled under other Acts could be levied for charges under this Act. There is also the question of uniformity of charges throughout the country. One local authority could decide that their charges would be raised largely under one heading rather than being spread out over a number of the services they were providing, and in that way there might be a disadvantage in one local authority area for an industrialist as against locating in another area. This might make it more competitive for people to manufacture their goods in one local authority area as against another.
The Confederation of Irish Industry were concerned about the effect these charges might have if there was not some uniformity in the manner in which they were applied throughout the country. I am only posing the questions, because I feel personally that there has to be an element of discretion in the determination. Our whole thrust is that the elected members should decide this. In arguing that, we would also argue that they should have full discretion to decide on the level of the charges. To give the Minister an opportunity to allay the fears of the Confederation of Irish Industry, I would ask him to give a more detailed definition of service in this context than is given in the Bill.
Can the Minister say whether charges can also be made under the Planning Act?
No, the Planning Act is specifically excluded. The definition is intended to embrace all services and facilities provided by a local authority to a person or in respect of premises, for example, where a person or premises can be identified as enjoying or having available individually or directly to him a particular service, such as waste disposal services or waste disposal facilities, sewage disposal, various licences and permits. The intention is that local authorities will be free to make charges over as wide a range of services as possible. It is for the authority themselves to decide which of the relevant services will be charged for and which will not. The Water Pollution Act contains provisions itself, and will not come within the constraints or the provisions of this Bill. This Bill will not affect that Act because it has its own provisions in relation to licences, and so on.
To clarify Deputy Bruton's point about services provided on a general or community-wide basis such as the ones mentioned, street lighting or road sweeping, these are not covered within the definition.
Does that mean that if there is a community benefit from the service there cannot be a charge?
Yes, if it is a community service.
Even if there was only one person benefiting from street lighting?
No, that is not within the ambit of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 3, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following subsection:—
"(4) The making of a charge under the provisions of this section shall be a reserved function exercisable directly by the elected members of the local authority concerned.".
We have already debated fairly substantially the Fianna Fáil point of view in this regard. The intention behind this amendment is to do exactly what we have been saying since the debate started this morning, to write into the Bill a section stating that it shall be a function only of the elected members of the local authority. I am sure there is a temptation on your part, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, to ask us not to repeat the arguments we have already made. However, this is crucial to our opposition to the Bill as presented by the Minister. As a party we are not opposed, in principle, to the idea of bringing in charges if they are brought in to give the local authorities a further source of revenue. That is not being done. The Minister spoke about the shortfall which existed in local authorities and the difficulties they have experienced since 1978 when rates were taken off houses and a limit put on the rate which could be struck each year. That was done for very good reasons, particularly to protect commercial and industrial properties against exorbitant poundage being struck each year. The Minister is more or less boasting that he has changed the law in this regard and is allowing local authorities to strike whatever rate they like on commercial and industrial properties. We do not altogether applaud this because the industrial and commercial property owners are providing essential employment, which is of crucial importance at present, and will always be so. If excessive taxation burdens are to bear on industrial and commercial concerns to such an extent that they can no longer continue to trade successfully, then excessive levels of commercial rates are of no benefit to anybody. It is questionable whether the Minister's move in this regard is of any great benefit.
I should like to ask the Minister why he uses different forms of words when addressing different audiences in regard to the main provisions of the Bill In a circular sent to local authorities on 10 May 1983, section 10 states:
Functions: The charges functions assigned to local authorities under the Bill will, as executive functions, fall to be performed by the manager.
Yet, on 1 June, the Minister in his Second Stage speech put this in a completely different way. He said:
The basic responsibility for deciding on the amount to be raised by charges will fall to be exercised by the council members....
Those two documents were prepared in the Department of the Environment by or for the Minister, and in the Dáil Chamber the emphasis is on creating the impression that the levying of these new charges will be exercised by elected council members. He makes no such assertion to the county managers but states that charges functions assigned to local authorities under the Bill will fall to be performed by the manager. That is the double talk of which I accused the Minister earlier on and it is an obvious intention to cover the real implications of this Bill. The Bill is disastrous as far as local authorities are concerned, and, if the views of the elected Members of this House are not going to be accepted by the Government, it is a very sad day for democracy and this Parliament. It will be a tragic day for local authorities and for people elected to them because they will be affected most by the terms of the Bill.
During the Second Stage debate Deputy Doyle spoke very strongly and expressed her serious concern at the provisions of the Bill attempting to give power to managers to implement its provisions. It is not good enough for the Minister to state that the status quo will be maintained. He seemed to think that was a satisfactory reply to the points we were making. When this Bill is enacted the status quo will not be maintained because the law will have changed. The power to levy charges will have changed and the obligation on the Exchequer to recoup in respect of house grants will have been changed. The whole method of financing local authorities will also have changed and charging of local services will no longer be a source of minor revenue to local authorities. As the Minister said, a transition will take place on the whole question of financing local authorities, a transition from Exchequer to local revenue sources and it will become a major source of local tax.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.