Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 14 Mar 1985

Vol. 356 No. 12

Local Government (Reorganisation) Bill, 1985: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Roimh Thráth na gCeisteanna bhí ag labhairt faoi na ceantair Ghaeltachta agus ag rá nár tugadh aon treoir don choimisiún seo faoi cad a tharlódh do na ceantair a bhí istigh sna toghcheantair eagsúla de na comhairlí contae, agus is mór an trua nár smaoinigh an Rialtas ar thagairt a dhéanamh do na ceantair sin nuair a bhí siad ag tabhairt treoir don choimisiún. De réir mar a fheicimse anois leanfar ar aghaidh sna contaethe eagsúla leis an scoilt atá ann ó thaobh na Gaeltachta de, go bhfuil cuid de na Gaeltachtaí istigh i dtogh-cheantar amháin agus cuid den Ghaeltacht chéanna istigh i dtogh-cheantar eile. Tarlaíonn sé go speisialta i nGaeltacht na Gaillimhe atá sa cheantar thiar ón Chorrib agus ón chathair, agus d'fheilfeadh sé go mór dá ndéanfaí togh-cheantar mór amháin do cheantar Chonamara le seacht nó ocht suíocháin agus bheadh na ceantair Ghaeltachta ceangailte le chéile. Dá dtarlodh sé sin bheadh guth i bhfad níos láidre acu istigh ag na cruinnithe de Chomhairle Contae na Gaillimhe. Mar atá níl ach guth lag acu mar tá an ceantar Gaeltachta scoilte agus tá cuid de i dtogh-cheantar amháin agus cuid de i dtogh-cheantar eile ina bhfuil ceantar mór Béarla istigh leis.

Theip ar an Rialtas treoir a thabhairt don choimisiún agus beidh locht ar na torthaí dá réir. Cheap cuid mhaith daoine go raibh an Rialtas i ndáiríre faoin Ghaeilge. Ghlac siad go poiblí leis na moltaí a bhí ag Bord na Gaeilge agus ceann de na moltaí a bhí sa tuarascáil sin ná go ndéanfaí iarracht na ceantair seo a neartú agus a cheangail le chéile, cumhacht a thabhairt dóibh agus guth níos láidre a thabhairt dóibh sa chóras rialtais, go háirithe sa chóras rialtais áitiúil, ach tá an seans sin caillte anois. Is é sin muna bhfuil an tAire agus an Rialtas sásta athsmaoineamh a dhéanamh ar na moltaí atá glactha acu cheana féin ón choimisiún.

The principal proposals contained in the Bill refer to the Dublin area. On this side of the House we have recognised for a long time that there was need to restructure the local government system in the Dublin area to take account of the huge housing development and the establishment of entire new communities and large townships within the Dublin area that were not catered for in the structures that were established many years ago before these developments took place. The existing regime in Dublin was Dublin Corporation, Dublin County Council, Dún Laoghaire Urban District Council and the Balbriggan Town Commissioners. The Government decided to establish a new corporation area and three new county councils to replace the four authorities I have mentioned.

In the new local authority areas there is large divergence in the ratio of population to elected member and I wish to draw the attention of the House to that fact. Part of the Government's brief was that there would be equalisation of representation between the different areas in each county, but there is a rather large deviation in Dublin. In the new proposed corporation area there will be one member per population of 10,485, in the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown new county council there will be one member per population of 6,630; in the Tallaght-Clondalkin county council area there will be one member per population of 6,374; and in the the Blanchardstown-Fingal area there will be a member per 4,754. There is certainly no attempt here at equalisation of representation within the county of Dublin.

It is interesting to note the divergence across the country. In Leitrim a councillor is elected per population of 1,255, in Longford a councillor per 1,483 and in Carlow a representative is elected per population of 1,896. These are the lower figures but, on the other hand, in the south Cork area there will be a councillor per population of 6,808. We still continue to have a major divergence between the ratio of population to membership of local authorities.

The main proposals of the Bill are designed to facilitate the establishment of the new authorities in Dublin. To be quite honest, anyone reading them will have to admit that the proposals for Dublin are very confusing. I am sure we are witnessing something unprecedented in local government history. I doubt if any Government in any part of the world have ever set about changing the structures of the authorities in the primary centre of population in the way we are proposing.

Let me give some indication of the sequence of events proposed by the legislation. Under the Bill new boundaries are being established for four new local authorities in Dublin. However, elections will not be held in respect of Dublin Corporation, Dublin County Council, Dún Laoghaire Urban District Council and the Balbriggan Town Commissioners but elections will be held within the boundaries of the proposed new Dublin authorities. However, councillors successful in these elections will not serve the new authorities but will be assigned after the election to serve in three of the four previous authorities. Some of the newly elected councillors for the new Rathdown council area will serve on the old Dublin County Council and the old Dún Laoghaire Urban District Council even though they have been elected as councillors to the newly proposed county council. I do not think one could get anything more confusing than that. In addition, further legislation will have to be enacted after the elections to establish the proposed four new Dublin authorities. However, this legislation cannot be introduced until all the consequential arrangements have been worked out, dividing Dublin County Council, Dublin Corporation and Dún Laoghaire Urban District Council into four new areas, and until all the staff and management separation agreements are finalised.

It is fair to ask the question: what happens if agreement is not reached on the division of property and of staff and management functions between the new local authorities? What happens if the unions do not co-operate? What happens if a major strike is called? Dare I pose the question, what happens if a general election is called in the interregnum after people have been elected to a council which does not exist and who are being asked to serve on a council which was been abolished? It is possible that the councils to which they have supposedly been elected may never come into existence. This is the most confusing legislation any Government ever attempted to put through the House. I doubt whether many people understand the complexity and stupidity of this Bill. People are asking why the Government are going about this in such a ham-fisted way, and why they have selected such a tortuous route to achieve such a simple change. The only answer to these questions is that up to now the Government have failed to get on with the job and to do the groundwork which would have enabled them to have all this work done before next June. Maybe they harboured hopes of being able to postpone the election again.

That was the Deputy's hope.

Our insistence that these elections be held has finally convinced the Government that they would not get away with another postponement.

Fianna Fáil did it two years on the trot.

Having wasted a year we now have a situation in which the Government had to scramble something together quickly but the unscrambling of this will cause a lot of headaches and confusion and will not contribute to a smooth transition to the new structures for a reformed local government system in the Dublin area. In fact it will lead to utter chaos and confusion. I hope it will not result in disillusion or that it will not be a disincentive to people coming forward to participate in local democracy. People should seek to give service to their follow members in the community through these local authorities, but they will only do that if they see that participation is meaningful and that by playing their part they can be effective. Unless the functions are expanded and defined, and unless the financing is changed, I can see a lot of people in Dublin scratching their heads in 12 months time and asking how they ever agreed to this.

Like all rushed legislation, this is bad legislation. Nothing should be rushed in the sense of bringing forward proposals for legislative change. Over the years I have heard those with long experience continually pass that advice to the younger Members. This Bill was rushed to my house by a civil servant last Saturday so that I as Opposition spokesman would have an opportunity of seeing it before the Dáil sat on Tuesday. This Bill was circulated to the other Members last Tuesday and taken today, Thursday. This means that very few Members had an opportunity to study it. That is a fact which cannot be denied. I cannot recall many other legislative proposals which were brought in at the last minute and given such little time for consideration. I sound the warning bell that what we are doing now could lead to a lot of difficulty for the Dublin region in about 12 months time unless this is sorted out.

Unless the unions and the staff in the different authorities are very generous in reaching a settlement with the management and the Department, the Minister is heading for trouble in trying to divide these responsibilities. More will be heard of this. This is not the right way to do this. All these proposals could have been announced this time last year and that would have given the Minister, the management and staffs the last 12 months to discuss the new arrangements.

Up to the date this commission were established in mid-January and given their terms of reference, no discussions as regards changes in staff arrangements, management structures and the authority boundary areas in Dublin had taken place. That is extraordinary considering that we had had a postponement a year earlier to allow those discussions to take place, the proposals to be published and time to consider representations on these matters. Like so many other things, this will be rushed through and will be seen to be wrong and slipshod, and unless the staffs agree to be very amenable, there could be trouble.

The other main area being changed outside Dublin is the Galway area. This Bill is dealing with the new structures for Dublin and the changes proposed for Galway. The extraordinary thing about Galway is that the commission were asked to consider whether a boundary extension should be recommended for Galway city. When the commission wrote to the two local authorities informing them of this and asking for their views, the corporation and the county council sought information as to what exactly was involved and, if there was agreement, if compensation would be payable. It transpired at the fairly early stage that the Government were not able to answer questions. There was no procedure whereby Galway County Council could be compensated for any territory they ceded to Galway Corporation and discussions broke down at an early stage.

As there were only three weeks for the discussions to take place, things were rushed and it was only at the last minute that some councillors from both authorities got together and made an agreed submission. This was no thanks to the Minister or his Government, to the terms of reference of the commission or the arrangements the Minister gave to the commission, or the commission itself because they were powerless. They would not have made any recommendation for an extension of the Galway city boundary were it not for the fact that there was agreement locally. If there had been any dissention locally, the commission made it clear that they could not make a submission and they would not. That is what happened in Limerick. In that case they could not make a submission because there was disagreement and the commission did not have sufficient time to consider the matter. We see a lot of difficulty being created for local authorities because of the Government's dilatory approach to this area.

I am interested in the section dealing with Galway, particularly where mention is made of the continuation of the management structures. At present there is a joint manager for the city and the county, but under the proposal to eventually make Galway city a county borough, this Bill provides that that management arrangement will continue. I want to protest against that. That is not satisfactory and it will not be well received in Galway. It was felt that the expansion of the city boundary was long overdue. The opportunity offered by this Bill was availed of, no thanks to the commission but due to the hard work done by local officials. There does not seem to be much point in establishing Galway city as a county borough and telling us it has equal status to Galway County Council if it is to continue under the same management as the county. The city will now operate independently and, financially and in every other way, administer all the services which will become its responsibility and should be under the management of a county manager who should not have to share his duties and responsibilities with any other area.

The growth and development of Galway has been hindered by the present management structure where the county manager delegates to an assistant manager and where the daily operation is controlled by a town clerk who is the person most in touch with the problems and services administered, and who is also the person immediately consulted for decisions. The town clerk cannot make decisions, he must refer them to the assistant manager; and if it is a big decision the assistant manager must refer it to the county manager. We have a very cumbersome inefficient structure which is hindering development. It does not encourage initiative and it does not stimulate dynamism within the local structure. I urge the Minister to change that section where he guarantees the existing manager that so long as he holds the office of Galway County Manager he will continue also as manager of the new county borough of Galway. That is most unsatisfactory and unreasonable and something we urge the Minister to change.

The Minister did not mention in his speech, nor in the Bill, the role of the town clerk after the establishment of the new county borough. There does not seem to be any provision for a town clerk in a county borough structure.

In relation to Dublin, when the four local authorities were being replaced by four new authorities and when newly elected councils were to act on behalf of three of the old ones, the Balbriggan Town Commissioners disappeared off the scene. There is no reference in the speech or in the Bill to what has happened to the Balbriggan Town Commissioners in this most confusing arrangement which the Minister has thought up to introduce radical reform in the Dublin area. Will the Minister tell us what will happen to the Balbriggan Town Commissioners?

The Gaeltacht areas come in under the Galway recommendations. Due to the time constraints and the difficulty of reaching agreement because of lack of compensation arrangements and lack of an assurance in regard to the procedures to be adopted in deciding compensation, the agreed submission from the two local authorities in Galway was effectively a last minute thing. In fact an exception was made to allow acceptance of their submission at a date later than the appointed time. The Galway County Council recommended that Connemara would be one electoral area. Is there a possibility that that recommendation could be revived and accepted or is it the position that the Minister will refuse to accept any changes in the recommendations made by either of the two commissions in regard to the new electoral boundary delineations. If the Minister is totally against any changes I would like him to say so because in a number of areas groups are coming together to pressurise for certain changes to eliminate local anomalies that have arisen. If there is local agreement in relation to getting a change there is no reason the Minister should hold out, so I would like him to give some indication to the House that he will accept agreed recommended changes when he makes an order.

This Bill does not do a lot but it gives the Minister a lot of power. Section after section of the Bill contains the words "the Minister may by order". The Minister is receiving vast powers to make orders which will have far-reaching effects on electoral areas. We will not see these proposals here at the moment because most of them will be made by order and after a period of 21 sitting days of the Dáil they will come into force unless they are annulled. They are not now before the House so there is an opportunity for local groups who are agreed on changes to approach the Minister before he makes an order. A mistaken impression may have been given that, because the commissions made their reports and the Bill has been introduced here, no changes can be made. This Bill and the commissions' reports will have no effect on the electoral areas. This is reserved for the Minister. The Minister can accept or reject suggestions, but if there is agreement for a change in any area the Minister should have an open mind and consider and accept sensible proposals when they come forward.

There is an urgent need for reconsideration of what the Minister has done in the Connemara area, particularly in relation to the division of the Fíor Gaeltacht of Connemara, which we had hoped would some day be bound together in one electoral area. On the question of the future of the Gaeltachtaí, they will have to have a stronger place in the local government system. The intention in establishing Údarás na Gaeltachta was that eventually additional powers could be ceded to that authority; but because of controversies that have raged — for political reasons — there seems to be little likelihood that the Minister will cede additional powers to that authority. The Government since they were elected set out to destroy the credibility of Údarás na Gaeltachta and have done great damage to the whole concept of a local authority for the Gaeltacht areas. If the Government are not prepared to strengthen the Údarás by giving them greater powers in relation to functions dealing with roads, housing and other local services, I suggest that there is a need to provide some co-ordination between the various Gaeltacht areas.

I recommend the suggestion of Comhairle na Gaeilge that there should be a Comhairle na Ceanntaire Gaeilge, that there should be some sort of a national committee which could act as the voice for all the Gaeltacht areas in representations to local councils and to the Department of the Gaeltacht and other Government Departments about matters affecting Gaeltacht areas. The Gaeltachtaí have two difficulties with which to contend. They are located in remote areas — and I suppose that is why the language survived there, because the oppressor did not exert his influence in those areas — and they have great economic difficulties, great social problems and a huge lack of services and opportunity. There is need for some special medium of representation for them to have a voice which will be heard. I do not know if this Government are in any way sympathetic to the language or the Gaeltacht. Very little of what they have done would convince us that there was any sympathy at all.

We do not pay lip service to it.

I can only put these suggestions before the Minister. I hope that he will respond and justify his inaction, or give some assurance that he will take action on some of these matters in the future.

I think that I understand what is proposed with regard to Galway and Dublin. In Galway the existing borough council will remain, up to the date of the election and after it but the borough council area is being extended and at some date in the future the extended borough council will be made a county borough. Therefore the people in the city are not being allowed to participate in the county council elections because at some date in the future they will be made a county borough. On the date of the county council election they will still be only a borough council and under the existing legislation entitled to vote in the county council elections, but when this Bill passes that right will have been taken from them.

The whole question of the effect on commercial ratepayers in the areas which are being transferred from one local authority area to another is of very great importance. This deserves much more comment than the brief reference by the Minister in his introductory remarks. In the case of Galway the corporation rate last year was £23.77p and the county council rate was £19.64p. Therefore, if a commercial property has a high valuation and there are many such in the area which is being added to the city from the county, with one factory employing well over 1,000 people, a property there with £100 valuation would be paying £2,300 in the corporation area and only £1,900 if it had remained in the county council area. Immediately, there will be an increased financial burden of £400 per £100 valuation on properties which are being transferred. There is an arrangement whereby that increase will be phased in over a period of five years. It seems that the phasing in is based on the valuation and not on the amount of rates to be paid. Why is that so? Surely it would be more appropriate to base it on the actual rate to be paid.

Secondly, from the reference in the Bill to standard valuations, am I interpreting it correctly that if I live in the part of Galway County Council which is being transferred into the city and undertook an extension to my factory, shop or commercial property last year and am on the list for a revision of valuation, if my £100 valuation goes up to £150 — in other words, if there is an increase of £50 in my valuation — will the remission or phasing in over the five years apply to the increased valuation? As I read this Bill, it will not. Those who through no fault of their own, through a decision of this House, are being transferred from one rating authority into another, because they are progressive and recently undertook developments, are going to be doubly penalised. Not alone will they face the high rate in the future but they are going to face it now on the part of their property which has been recently valued because of an improvement and the enlargement of their valuation. If that is so I ask the Minister to think twice about it and apply the phasing in over the five years also to any additional valuations arising from improvements.

I cannot let this debate go without asking the Minister to tell the House the history behind the strange anomaly that in County Cavan a district electoral division existed all on its own inside another electoral area. The district electoral division of Tullyvin West, with a population of 263, although geographically within the Bailieboro county electoral area, had heretofore been included in the Cavan county electoral area. There must be an interesting history behind that. The House should know what happened in the past and the Minister should say how that strange situation came about. It is correct that the matter should be regularised.

Some other matters in this Bill include voting procedures in appointing persons to various committees. This has not received any publicity, but it will bring about a fairly extensive change in the method of appointing council members and representatives of the council to various committees of the council. This has always been a bone of contention at council meetings. Some local authorities in the past have been accused of taking all the positions on committees because there happened to be a majority. Our thanks are due to the late President, Erskine Childers, who when Minister for Health when he was establishing the health boards laid down new procedures for representation of county councils on the health boards, whereby each group of seven on the council would be entitled to representation. That group could be formed by any seven members. This gave an opportunity to the smaller parties and Independents to group together to ensure that representation was proportionate in relation to the various political groupings on the council. No one group, because it might have been a majority of even one, could proceed to take all the seats on these committees. I am pleased that change is being introduced. Despite what some may say or think privately, there will be a general agreement that that is a good proposal. It is said that it will apply to every committee of the council and it is hoped it will eliminate much contentious discussion and vote taking at council meetings in the future.

Another interesting provision in the Bill is the power to extend the maritime boundaries of an authority. In this case the Bill proposes the extension of the boundary of the county of Cork to include Whiddy Island. It seems that Justice Costello made reference to this in his report on the tragedy there. I hope that other local authorities will have a look around at some of the offshore islands and locations adjacent to their coastline and consider if it would be worth their while bringing them within the county boundaries if such anomalies exist.

The Minister should explain to the House what he means by a reference to compulsory adjustment. As I said earlier, one of the difficulties confronting the local authorities in Galway — and the county council in particular because they are the ones who will suffer — was the lack of provision for making compensatory payments, or procedures or machinery for assessing the amount of compensation to be paid in the event of land and property being transferred from one authority into another. In this Bill the Minister said that the local authority should seek to reach agreement in questions of financial adjustments arising out of the ceding of an area from one local authority to another. Where local authorities are unable to reach agreement, it is suggested that the Minister would have the power and in the Bill he calls that compulsory adjustment. Previously, as I understood it, when a boundary commission made a recommendation that part of one area should transfer to another area, if there was no agreement locally as to what the compensation would be I understood that an independent arbitrator was appointed. I doubt if the Minister or his staff of civil servants might have the expertise to make a fair and accurate assessment of the amount of compensation to be paid.

I wonder why the Minister is taking this power on to himself in this section. Am I reading it wrongly? Is it the case that the Minister in having the power to make the decision will appoint the arbitrator, because the word "arbitrator" is not mentioned in section 4? Is that a new provision? If the Minister is to be the person to make the decision how will he exercise that function? Section 2(4) of the Second Schedule states:

the Minister shall, upon the request of either the Corporation or the County Council make an adjustment (hereafter in this Schedule referred to as a "compulsory adjustment") of such matter or thing and may by such adjustment make any provision in relation to such matter or thing which could under this Article have been provided for by an agreed adjustment.

That whole area of compensation could become very crucial in any boundary extension in the future. It has already raised itself as a major obstacle in Galway and the agreement reached was conditional on satisfactory compensation arrangements being made. I hope that that condition will be fulfilled. An explanation is needed there.

Those living in Baldoyle, Sutton and that general area of Dublin for some strange reason find themselves becoming part of the new Dublin County Council. As I understand it, Howth and that general area has been part of Dublin Corporation for the past 20 years, a period that has seen the greatest urban development experienced in the country. The area mentioned has participated in that growth and there have been huge housing developments in the whole region. The people there consider themselves very much a part of Dublin City. They identify with the city and with Dublin Corporation. They have never considered themselves to be out in the country. Any fairminded person looking at the map of Dublin as drawn up by the Government, not the commission, must question why this area has been put in with the county. It involves leaving a very narrow neck connecting Howth and Baldoyle to the county. There is an extraordinarily narrow band connecting one to the other and that highlights that the decision made was for a reason other than keeping natural communities together. If Howth was naturally a community to any part of Dublin it was more part of the city community than of the county community. Connecting in the way shown on the map is very strange.

There are some people who would be so bold as to suggest that this was done by the Government purely for electoral advantage. That is a terrible thought.

The Deputy does not even believe that and he has a pretty exaggerated mind.

A terrible thought crossed my mind that the Government would do a thing like that. I believe one Government Minister, Deputy Boland, has a strong electoral interest in that area, but I would be surprised if he would go so far as to seek to protect his position to that extent.

Howth is not in his area.

He has an interest in the county and he is keeping up the vote in the county by bringing in Howth, Baldonell and the areas around. The sad fact is that the people who live in those areas will be stuck with a greatly increased rate. They will have cheque book pains paying the increased rate to satisfy the political ambitions of some Fine Gael people in that area. They will have to pay cash to sustain a strong vote for Fine Gael in the new county Dublin and Fingal areas.

The trend is in the opposite way. Outside of Galway the Deputy is not aware of anything.

Anybody who looked at the map could not understand how any person could possibly have drawn a line in that way.

Deputy Ray Burke has misinformed the Deputy. The Deputy should check the matter.

Everybody who has looked at the map has asked how was it that the Government were so blatant. Of course they are becoming very daring and bold. In the last few months they have chanced their arms in regard to the appointment of the Director-General of RTE and in dealings with An Bord Pleanála and Bord na gCapall. They are really shaking things out.

I would not talk out of turn if I were the Deputy. Deputy O'Malley was shaken out.

There is no way the areas I mentioned connect with the county other than through a little neck. I want to get it across to the good people who live in Howth, Baldoyle and Sutton where there is a lot of commercial property which will be subject to rates, that they will have to pay to help to keep the Fine Gael vote up in the area.

Deputy Ray Burke must be worried.

The valuations are lower in the county and one must multiply the rate by the valuation.

I have been given figures on the Dublin rate by a very reliable authority. The Minister of State informed me that the rate for the city of Dublin is £18 and the rate for the county is approximately £24, a difference of about £6 in the £.

One must multiply the rate by the valuation.

The Deputy will have an opportunity to speak. The Deputy appears to have all the answers, like his brother. A commercial property in that area with a valuation of £100 is subject to a rates bill of £1,800.

The Deputy should give the House the valuations for Coolock also.

The shifting of that area from the city to the county will mean that the rates bill will jump to £2,400 for such a property, an increase of £600 per annum. That is a very big price to be asked to pay to satisfy the electoral ambitions of some Fine Gael person in that area and the general wellbeing of the Fine Gael Party.

I am glad the Deputy is so concerned about our wellbeing.

I am concerned about the matter. These matters must be highlighted. I do not think anybody has read the Bill. I am probably the only Member, apart from the Minister, who has read the Bill from A to Z. I do not know if the Deputy who will follow me has studied every line of it as I did but if he did he did not have anything else to do for the last two days because I had to burn the midnight oil to do so. I got a head start in that I was given a copy of it a day or two earlier then anybody else.

According to section 3 all orders made under the Bill must be laid before the Dáil for 21 sitting days except those made under section 5, 7 (7), 8 or 24. At first reading it appears that orders made under the latter sections are exempt. However, I shall quote section 3:

3.—(1) Every order or regulation made by the Minister under this Act, other than under section 5, 7 (7), 8 or 24, shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and if either such House shall, within the next twenty-one days on which that House has sat after such order is laid before it, pass a resolution annulling such order or regulation, such order or regulation shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.

Subsection (2) states that when it is proposed to make an order under section 8 or 24 of the Act a draft thereof shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the order shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House.

There seems to be a contradiction between the two because one says that if an order is made under section 8 it does not have to be brought before the Oireachtas or wait for 21 sitting days before it comes into force, whereas subsection (2) states that it has to be brought before the Houses and must await the period of 21 sitting days. Orders that have to be brought before the House which have to wait the passing of 21 sitting days are very important in relation to this Bill because of the time scale. Today, late in his speech the Minister emphasised this point. He implied that if this Bill is not allowed to go through before Easter the whole game is up because it would be very difficult to get orders through. This again shows the slipshod way in which the Government have gone about this Bill. He said that it will be necessary to have the Bill enacted before Easter. It will be essential, because if the Bill is not law before Easter the whole game will collapse because of the orders and the time scale necessary. I hope the Minister will clarify the apparent contradiction.

I will refer briefly to the offshore islands and ask the Minister whether he has received representations from Comhdháil na nOileán for separate representations on county councils for people residing on those islands. I have heard that some members of the Minister's party have attended comhdháil meetings and have given assurances on behalf of the Taoiseach that the Government will make special provision for those communities. So far, we have not seen any proposals which would fulfil the commitments made, particularly by Deputy O'Donnell when he spoke, as he said, representing the Taoiseach. The secretary of the comhdháil made representations on behalf of the islanders but so far I understand they have been rejected. I have here a letter from the Department of the Environment which is as follows:

18 Nollaig, 1984.

Feargal Mac Amhlaoimh,

Comhdháil na nOileán,

Comharchumann Chléire Teo,

Cléire,

An Sciobairín,

Co. Chorcaí.

A Chara,

Mr. Liam Kavanagh, T.D., Minister for the Environment, has asked me to refer to your letter of 27 Samhain, 1984 suggesting that separate representation on the county councils of Cork, Donegal, Galway and Mayo should be provided for the off-shore islands. The Minister has asked me to explain that the combined island population in each case falls well short of the number of persons normally represented by a single county councillor in the counties concerned. This is so even when account is taken of those islands which are connected to the mainland by bridge or causeway, for example, Achill in County Mayo, Gorumna, Lettermore and Lettermullan in County Galway and Inchadoney and Reengarogy in County Cork and of the islands of Haulbowline and Spike in Cork harbour.

As you know the election of county councillors is on the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote, a system which envisages electoral areas returning at least 3 members each.

In this connection there is a procedure in the Local Government Acts, whereby a local body set up to further the general social and economic interests of the people of an area may be given recognition, and aided by the county council as an approved local council. The people of the islands may wish to consider whether to establish such bodies and apply to the appropriate county council for recognition of them. A copy of the relevant extract from the Local Government Acts is attached (section 72/75 of the Local Government Act, 1941 as amended by section 54 of the Local Government Act, 1955).

I hope the Minister will make some reference to the position of the islanders. He must appreciate that there is great frustration among those communities, particularly about lack of facilities and the neglect of some of the islands in regard to the provision of essential services and the construction and maintenance of roads.

Particularly in my constituency, in order to bring foodstuffs and domestic materials for homes and farms ashore, the goods have to be transferred from freight vessels to currachs and rowed on to beaches on which waves are crashing, putting the lives of the people at risk. The property is very often damaged from being soaked in salt water. Of course, there is a high incidence of arthritis on these islands because of the constant wetting which the men have to endure to get their goods ashore. That happens every week on Inisheer and Inishmaan. Young men become old very quickly, crippled with arthritis because of those very primitive methods. They still have to use old methods to bring animals out to be transferred to freight vessels. This should not be allowed to continue in 1985. Vessels are incapable of coming in to the shore because proper landing facilities have not been provided. I hope this and other Ministers would give recognition to the difficulties those communities are experiencing. We have a duty to provide those communities at least with means of transporting their goods and families to and from the mainland.

There are many other instances which I could refer to. The living conditions are still as primitive as they were 50 years ago. Communities should be sustained on those islands but we need to bring their standard of living up to that available generally.

When the Government announced changes for Dublin they spoke about a Dublin Metropolitan Council but there is no reference to it in the Bill or in the explanatory memorandum. It is like much of the reforms we have been requesting from the Minister — they have been left to lá eile. It is not satisfactory that so much time has been allowed to elapse without work to reform the whole area of local government. It is strange that if the promised DMC are to have some important part to play in the new Dublin local authority system, there is not a reference to it here. The Minister spoke about a three tier system, the top one of the DMC which would not have any statutory powers, the county councils which would be the main local authorities, and there would be a third tier below that. There is no reference to the third tier in this Bill, as I have highlighted, and it is one of the major omissions. Were there any attempt to provide for some tier of the local government system for the large urban areas which have been built up over the past 20, 30 and 40 years we would give a much greater welcome to this Bill. The only welcome we can give is to say that it is a small, shaky start down a road which we have been encouraging the Government to travel for a long time and which we hope they will not stop going down the minute these elections are over. I am convinced that the only reason this has been brought forward is that the election date is coming up and the Government must show some cause for delaying it last year. All they are doing is changing the electoral areas. They have not yet made provision for the new structures in Dublin.

A very unusual situation will obtain after these elections. I have warned about the difficulties that we could run into there. The Tallaghts, the Clondalkins and the other growth areas or townships that have been built up around Dublin are all neglected. This Bill has no place for them. There is not a word about a structure for them in this Bill and they are being ignored. We know the extent of the problems in those areas, and these new county councils will not provide the solution to the difficulties that the people in Tallaght and the other growth areas in Dublin are experiencing. It will not provide them with the forum to bring forward many local problems which are bearing down on them on a day to day, week to week basis. Very big frustrations are building up in those areas, and the proper way to accommodate the needs of those communities is to provide a second tier of a local government system there.

The Minister seemed confused when he started to talk about a three tier system. You cannot call Dublin Metropolitan Council, who have no statutory function, a tier in the local government system. They are just some kind of advisory committee and should not be referred to as part of a three tier system. The Minister should stay with a two tier system, continue with the county council as the main line local authority and below that in the urban areas where large groups of people are living together he should provide a second tier, be that a district council or whatever name you want to give it. I would prefer some name like Tallaght Town District Council which would link it to the county council to be established in that area and where the division of roles and functions would be clear, one would not overlap the other and responsibilities would be clearly defined. In that area there is great need for solid work and reform. The Minister will find this side of the House very co-operative in supporting him in any change of that nature, and we urge him to get on with the real reform. We will facilitate the passing of this Bill before Easter so that he will not run himself into trouble with the orders which he has to make which might go by default if we were to debate Committee and other Stages of this Bill fully. If that was to carry on after the Easter recess he would not be able to hold the local elections or he could hold them only if he were to bring in a guillotine motion or if the Fianna Fáil Party in Dáil Éireann co-operated in letting the Bill pass in time for those orders to be made and to come into operation. We are prepared to co-operate fully with him——

I thank the Deputy.

——in allowing this Bill to come into law before Easter to enable all the other procedures to be met to enable the elections to be held. Let there be no doubt about that and let us get out to the hustings and let the people decide. Let them have the opportunity in what the Minister might consider mid-term judgment of his Government's performance but what we hope will be the final nail in the coffin.

Hope springs eternal.

It is heart-warming to hear the Opposition spokesman facilitating the passage of this legislation before Easter. One could be cynical and say that because the Government are in mid-term, because of the obvious advantage they have and also because the Opposition really cannot complain about gerrymander despite the attempt to do so, they are rubbing their hands with glee and trying to get into this election because the boundaries are more than fair to them. As between political parties these boundaries are, if anything, less than fair to this side of the House and give no advantage to this side.

A Local Government (Reorganisation) Bill should have two elements. First it should introduce an element of government at local level which is not there at the moment because of the total lack of powers on the part of members of local authorities. Second, it should introduce a local element into the exercising of that authority. Progress has been made but, particularly in the Dublin city context, we do not go far enough. I do not intend to take a party line on this issue. Important matters need to be raised which I would like to raise here today. I am surprised that the major Opposition party have no proposals of their own to put forward. They have no suggestions to replace suggestions which are being put. They have nothing to say in a planned way about what they would like to see. The Opposition have a duty to oppose and they are doing so, but they also have the responsibility as a party offering themselves as the alternative Government to propose, and they have made no proposals whatsoever. That is a pity because if they had done so we could compare them with the Government's proposals and see how well each set of proposals would stand up.

That is not true.

Deputy Mitchell without interruption.

We have made more proposals in this area than have the Government.

There are great improvements in the Dublin County Council area. The existing arrangement of an authority in Dún Laoghaire with a county council encircling Dublin city and Dublin City Council in the middle cannot be allowed to continue. The change in the county introducing three new authorities will improve the situation there. The ratio of representation in the county is coming nearer to the national average and that also is a good thing. However, the situation in Dublin city has not changed or, in so far as it has changed, it has changed for the worse. The mix of population is not good. We have transferred out of what might be called settled working class and middle class areas and have brought problem areas into a city which already has more than its fill of problem areas, particularly in the inner city. Putting all of those areas into one local authority is not a good idea. On a breakdown the population in Dublin city is approximately 325,000 on the north side and only 220,000 on the south side. We have an enormously disproportionate representation on the north side of the city which will return 31 councillors as against 21 councillors for the south side. That disproportionate representation will create problems. The representation within the city of approximately 10,500 per councillor does not allow for the local representation we have been speaking of. It is only marginally better than the representation we had heretofore. I do not have the exact figures but the new population at approximately 546,000 will be about 20,000 greater than the existing population in Dublin Corporation. There will be seven additional members but that does not give any significant decrease between Dublin city councillors and councillors elsewhere. That is a matter for concern. The reality is that a Dublin electoral area to the new Dublin City Council will be about the same size as a three-seat Dáil constituency whereas Leitrim, which does not even make up half a Dáil constituency, will return 22 members. This will encourage people to use the Dublin City Council as a way of getting into the Dáil. Many of us making our careers in politics started at that level but it would not encourage people to become involved in city politics for its own sake. The level of representation is too high and given the small turn-out at local elections, minorities will have a platform and will use it as a springboard into this House. All parties have used this system through the years but what we should be going after is local effort in reorganising local government, particularly in the Dublin area.

In County Leitrim the representation will be approximately 1,255 head of population per member whereas in Dublin it will be approximately 10,500. It is a ratio of 9 : 1. We are not making Dublin city politics any more local than they have ever been. I regret that because it would be in the interests of the public if we did so.

One of the commission's terms of reference was that the commission should recommend the division of each of the districts into two electoral areas of not more than five seats taking due account in such divisions of the affinity of different parts of these districts with each other and of the population of these areas as recorded in 1981. The Drimnagh-Crumlin-Walkinstown area will be the second biggest electoral area in the country. In terms of tolerance it will be way above the representation of other electoral areas in the city and that does not meet with the term of reference which was given to the commission. Part of Crumlin was taken out of the electoral area and part of Walkinstown was broken off from another part of Walkinstown and added into that electoral area. The areas of Crumlin, Kimmage and Drimnagh, which have a natural affinity, make up four quotas. How anyone could take out part of Crumlin and put in parts of Walkinstown and still meet that term of reference is beyond me. Either it is not in keeping with the term of reference or those on the commission do not know Dublin very well.

There is an area of Crumlin, part of the lower Crumlin development council's area, which is being cut out and put in with Harolds Cross, Terenure, Rathmines and another part of Terenure with which it has no affinity. They are poles apart. They are not even in the same parish. I do not see how that can be done while, at the same time at the other end of the electoral area, Walkinstown, which was Terenure I, was transferred into that part of the city and Walkinstown, which is called Ballyfermot H, is being transferred to another electoral area.

How can all that be justified given that term of reference? The commission have made a serious mistake in putting in five-seat electoral areas in south inner city and north inner city Dublin. Perhaps the members of the commission thought in good faith that because there were specific and particularly difficult problems in inner city Dublin the best thing to do would be to give them ten seats so that they would have a good representation. That would be a very good idea if it could be done by putting more representatives into smaller areas but in order to get sufficient representatives they had to make very large areas. What did they do? They made very large troublesome areas. One inner city constituency on the south side of Dublin, where the largest proportion of problems relating to the city arise, has been lumped into one five-seat local election constituency. The same has been done on the north side of the city. That is not a good idea. The Minister and his officials can titter away but they have made a very serious mistake.

No one is tittering.

A rushed job.

It is not in the interests of the people to put problem areas like Fatima Mansions, Dolphin House, St. Teresa's Gardens, Bishop Street flats and Oliver Bond House together and lump them in with other blocks of flats such as Iveagh Buildings and other densely crowded high rise buildings. Other solutions were available, for example, the Kilmainham end of that could have been put into a different electoral area as could the South Dock area. This would have left a smaller, more manageable area in the inner city which could be represented more effectively. A serious mistake was made by the commission and before it is too late I suggest that the House, by agreement, should re-consider that.

In relation to the powers of the new council and councillors, particularly vis-á-vis the manager, many of these councillors will be elected to authorities which will not exist.

In the initial period they will have to opt for one authority or another. We are to have a second Bill which I hope will come sooner rather than later. There should be a significant transfer of power back from city managers and county managers to councillors who should have the power to decide on local issues locally. That is the second element of local government reform. The first is to get the structure on a local basis where people are talking about local issues. Local government should be given to the elected representatives of the people. To do that we have to amend the Act dealing with the managers.

Many councillors are given a bad time by many of our over-paid TV stars like Gay Byrne and others but they would be quite capable of dealing with serious problems which affect many parts of this city which are nearer to ground level than Howth Head. We should give councillors the power to decide on matters which are affecting the people instead of just giving consent. The only power they have is to introduce a section 4 motion which is always controversial. How can we expect people to have respect for councillors if we do not respect them ourselves and in the national parliament devolve powers on them to enable them to deal with local issues?

It is very important that the Bill, which is complementary to this Bill, should be brought before the House this year. I do not know whether it would be possible to do that before the local government elections. Presumably it would not. We have to be very serious and very definite about devolving powers to local authorities and about transferring power from central government to councillors and from managers to councillors so that councillors who are elected by the people will have the authority local people want them to have and can exercise their responsibilities. I hope when we think in terms of that reform the whole question of local government financing will be considered seriously.

The Government are at an advanced stage in considering a national lottery. As chairman of the Dublin City Council Finance Committee for five of the past six years, I am aware that our committee undertook to study the possibility of having a lottery in the Dublin area. I raised that matter in this House. Initially I came up against much derisory comment from people who did not think it was a very good idea. Having pursued the matter through the city council and with various Government Ministers we find that the Government think a lottery is a good idea, have grabbed the idea for themselves and intend to hold a national lottery. That is fine, but I would urge that the local authorities should be given a share in the lottery. If local authorities have to organise the sale of a certain number of tickets in order to get a percentage, fair enough. There are many natural outlets within Dublin city in the different offices.

The Deputy is wandering from the Bill a little.

They could be used very easily as outlets for the sale of tickets for such a lottery. This Bill implements the commission's report, part of whose terms of reference was to propose boundaries with a maximum of five-seat constituencies. A number of three seat constituencies were proposed but no one-seat constituencies. The restriction of a population of 75,000 to 110,000 meant that there would have to be some five-seat constituencies. The multi-seat constituencies at local and national levels take from the effectiveness of parliament and local councils. Some system will have to be found which will give a single-seat constituency based on PR. This can be done.

If we were to introduce one-seat constituencies it is likely that Fine Gael would do well in Dublin and Fianna Fáil would do well west of the Shannon. It is possible to devise a one-seat constituency arrangement at national and local levels which would discount the regional imbalance and allow for the abolition of multi-seat constituencies. Multi-seat constituencies are a load of nonsense. They are outmoded and cause problems for Deputies and councillors who have to spend much of their time watching what other representatives are doing instead of getting on with the job.

I am sorry that in this Bill we have not attempted, even on a temporary basis or on a trial basis, to introduce one-seat local government constituencies even in one county council area or one borough council area to see how effective they would be. We have to think in terms of one seat local government constituencies and one seat Dáil constituencies if Deputies and councillors are to be effective in representing the people who elect them and if they are to be allowed to spend time outside their constituencies getting involved in local government and looking after people effectively, efficiently and scientifically. That is worth looking at.

In Dublin city because of the size of the local government areas and because of their importance in terms of political advantage and involvement it simply is not possible for most Deputies to surrender their interest in their city council or local government seats. Given the multi-seat constituency arrangement and the fact that some of the electoral areas in Dublin city are the same size as a three-seater constituency it would be political suicide for some Deputies to surrender their seats on local authorities. There are many TDs who probably would be very happy to do so. In my view, in local government reform we should not just encourage Deputies not to have to stand for election to local government but rather arrange our affairs in such a way that we can also encourage those who are elected to local government not to want to seek election to the national Parliament. There are many people who are specifically interested in local government affairs.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share