I would not mind. The Taoiseach said both in the House and outside, as did other Government sources, that rumours of a cancellation of the local elections were all nonsense and that it was a hallucination by the mad Fianna Fáil Party. The year progressed and the Dublin Central by-election was held. It is nice to have some part to play since, as director of elections, I managed to get some decision out of the result, even if it was the cancellation of the local elections. That was the reason for the decision. It had nothing to do with anything else.
There have been occasions in the past when both local elections and by-elections were postponed but such situations give rise to a good deal of unease on the part of many people. For instance, there are many who would regard themselves as non-political—community groups and other action groups — who continually harass politicians about being denied the opportunity to put themselves forward for local elections and to test the support that is forthcoming for them on the basis of the issues on which they are putting themselves forward. There is no question of the Opposition merely seeking another election. In accordance with the law and with regulations local elections should be held in June this year.
It is now almost five years since the last local elections were held. In the meantime we have had three general elections. There have been changes of Government but there has been no change so far as local authorities are concerned. During all of this time people have been preparing for the elections, organising themselves so that they can have their campaign ready for this year but this House which is an institution in which democracy is supposed to be sacrosanct not only decides that a by-election should be postponed but decide also to postpone the local elections. Anyone who understands local politics will know that there are people whose lives revolve around organising themselves for participation in local elections, people who are anxious to fight for the issues they believe in. Local elections provide for those people the only opportunity available to allow them participate in local politics. Perhaps local groups are now stronger and play a far greater role in local issues than was the case in the past.
I cannot think of any circumstances that would justify the postponing of local elections. Therefore, the Government's decision in this regard is wrong. However, I do not think that the holding of local elections this year would have made a great difference to the representation in Dublin. The Coalition parties would not be likely to lose substantially. There might be a swing from one to another of the two parties but it is unlikely that at the end of the day representation in terms of numbers from each party would have differed greatly. Fianna Fáil would have increased their representation while Labour would have lost substantially but Fine Gael would have been likely to hold on fairly well. In those circumstances there was no need for the Government to defer the elections. It would be helpful if the parties in Government were to admit that there is some validity in the argument we are making instead of saying that it is only a matter of Fianna Fáil being anxious for elections. Such childish assertions are hardly worthy of the Government.
There may be some validity in the reasons being put forward even at this stage for postponing the elections. I know it was not the decision of the Minister to review the situation of local authorities or their financing. The Tánaiste had made that decision but then there was a change of Government and he found himself having to defend what was a rather hasty decision. However, he seems now to have the will to examine the present local authority structure with a view to seeing what can be done about it. I accept that the whole situation of the financing of local authorities has altered in the past five or six years. The abolition of domestic rates resulted in a much greater reliance on central Government financing. Obviously, that is why the situation has changed. The rate limitations that were introduced have not kept pace with inflation, as the figures show clearly. Consequently, it became much more difficult for local authorities to maintain the necessary level of services.
We find that between 1978 and 1982 the consumer price index average increase has been 76.5 per cent while the rate increase limit in respect of local authorities has been 58 per cent. That is the reason for the financial difficulties of these bodies. Now that the estimates meetings are in progress, it is recognised generally that the financing of local authorities needs to be considered carefully with a view to ascertaining what changes can be made to make the whole situation more acceptable in the long term. I do not know how this question ought to be tackled. One could argue about local charges, about whether people should be asked to pay more taxation. Deputy Connolly seems to regard the water rates as being a fair taxation. There may be a slight lack of knowledge on his part in this respect. I do not think there is any objection on the part of people in Dublin city, for instance, to paying water charges that would be related in some way to the provision of that service. The objection is that in the first quarter of 1983 a crude figure was arrived at and that figure manifested itself in the form of a demand for water rates. What happened was that there was a shortfall in the finances in terms of expenditure vis-à-vis revenue and that in order to make up that shortfall a demand was sent out in the guise of charges for water. The overall figure was apparently divided among the number of householders concerned and simply labelled a water charge. It could have been called anything. It was an effort to make up the shortfall in revenue which local authorities were suffering as a result of not receiving the required finances from the Department.
In Dublin city there are in excess of 500,000 people and the population is increasing steadily. The revenue for administering services in the city for this year is £250 million compared with £220 million for last year. We are talking of services that are essential. Last year expenditure in housing amounted to £83.5 million while the figure in respect of road transportation was £31 million. Twenty-nine million pounds was spent on environmental protection and £21 million on water supply and sewerage. These are huge figures. In so far as the city is concerned it is not a question of cutting back services. We are talking about fixed charges. In this city, remuneration including pensions, constitutes 37 per cent of total revenue expenditure while the figure in respect of loan charges is 26 per cent with machinery grants amounting to 28 per cent and mandatory charges constituting 9 per cent. In these circumstances there is little scope for the city councillors to change the structure or to control expenditure. There is little they can do to improve the system or to save money. This is the sort of situation that is having a detrimental effect on local authorities throughout the country who are now beginning to regard themselves as superfluous. They have lost their powers. They are given a figure for the year. This year they were given 1 per cent on top of their outturn for 1983. Most of them have taken the easy way out, the only way out: to increase the commercial and industrial rate and to try to finance their expenditure on those figures.
We saw some very irresponsible actions in Dublin City Council last week. Labour members wanted to impose further increases on the hard-pressed commercial and industrial interests in the city. They wanted to impose further rate charges. With 68,000 people unemployed we are bending over backwards to try to keep people in employment. Surely it was counter-productive, negative and deplorable to try to get more blood out of a stone and thereby create more unemployment. That is the type of thing councillors are pushed into. It is going on all over the country.
The Minister has until the end of the year to prepare a comprehensive paper on how local authorities can be restructured, financed, given back some self-respect and control over their own decisions. We in Fianna Fáil are using this debate to try to highlight some of the problems. We disagree with the decision to postpone the elections. I wish the Minister well and his officials who will be doing the work. When the report comes to the Government I hope they will not say it is too radical and would change the status quo. It would be easy for the Minister for the Environment to draw lines on the map of Ireland in an effort to win extra seats on the local authorities.
In 1979 Fianna Fáil went to the people and got a clear message. We were not afraid in 1979 and we got a clear message. We were decimated at the polls. We lost seats in a majority of the local authorities. We had the guts to hold the elections. Obviously the Government have not. If they are to be meaningful, the changes must be radical and fundamental. It is probable that the proposed changes and charges will be horrific to the public. If we get a commitment at the end of this debate, at least we will have achieved something. If the Minister just says Fianna Fáil did not want the elections held that is the type of politics we should be trying to get away from and I hope the Minister does not fall into that trap.
The local authority areas are far too big. The average number of people per constituency is ridiculous. This is meant to be local politics and local democracy with councillors, urban councillors, district councillors and members of corporations having an input in local decision. III-advised decisions were taken. Previous Ministers drew up areas for political advantage. The local authority areas are not related to the type of problems in the different areas. Very often a councillor's area is bigger than his Dáil area which means effectively that we have no local democracy. There is no proper consultation.
Councillors do not know their areas, which was the whole idea behind all the Acts. It was intended that councillors should have an input in their own areas. This is a glorious opportunity to deal with that problem. In Dublin we have about 500,000 people and 45 councillors. We should try to get rid of all the arguments with people fighting each other within constituencies, with five councillors going to a meeting about some water problem or the roots of trees growing under a wall. They spend three hours at a public meeting with 30 people. At the other end of the constituency there is an active residents' committee.
It would be a very simple exercise to have an experiment with single seat constituencies, to take the wards and divide the city into 45 single seat constituencies. Councillors would then have 10,000 people and 2,000 houses to deal with. A councillor would have about ten to 15 roads to look after and he could do his job properly and give real representation to the people. The Minister knows that would be far better than the present position which is far from being a good democratic way to run the constituencies. We could divide Dublin into 45 single seat constituencies and let everybody stand for election. Whoever was elected could go to the city council and face up to the problems which have to be dealt with. This would be a far better set-up than the present structure. The Minister should consider it seriously. The five seat areas with 50,000 or 60,000 people are so far removed from local democracy that we might as well not have them at all. There are councillors who would not know the other end of the constituency and would see it very rarely apart from at election times. They cannot get around to it because of the pressures and demands made on them in their own areas.
If we had single seat areas there would still be plenty of competition because the local groups, pressure groups and political parties would keep any councillor busy. He would be able to do his job in a worth-while and useful way. The best person would be elected. This would be far more democratic than the present system of local elections where through the vagaries of the PR system the fifth seat often goes to somebody who started with a handful of votes. I have seen people who would be called right wing candidates in Irish politics getting in on the 17th count on transfers from left wing politicians in Irish terms. They get in on the 17th count on the No. 12 or No. 13 votes. What that has to do with democracy or local politics I do not know. I always like to try to get in on the first count instead of having my fate decided by that kind of system.
The Minister now has an opportunity to do something really democratic. He has done something which is totally undemocratic. Perhaps when in his wisdom he regrets that decision, he will try to do something democratic in the future. I know the Minister supports some of the things I have said. When the matter is brought before the House again — hopefully before Christmas — will the Minister give us a clear indication that the document dealing with the reorganisation of local authorities will be a meaningful one and not a smokescreen as Members on this side of the House believe it will be? I trust the Minister will refer to this in the course of his reply to the debate.
