Before the debate was adjourned last night, I was referring to section 6 which deals with the promotion of the interests of local communities and which will give statutory effect to what many local authorities have been doing. Some of the more progressive local authorities have already initiated many projects. I welcome the provisions which will give these measures, particularly those in relation to workshops, statutory effect. While Deputy Ferris welcomed section 6 he was worried about the amount of finance which would be made available to local authorities to carry out these works. I know from experience that very little seed capital or finance is needed to get some projects off the ground. FÁS have also played a part in this. Many sustainable jobs have been created in the small industries sector, particularly in the services area where we have been lagging for too long. Many of us have been talking for a long time about the need to develop our small industries and this section will go a long way towards doing that.
Section 49 deals with the twinning of local authority areas. Twinning arrangements have already taken place between many towns, cities and counties but, again, these had no statutory effect. Many of the more progressive local authorities have already gone down this road, which is particularly important from the point of view of tourism.
Even though it may not be a matter which should be dealt with in this Bill, I should like the system of local authority accounting to be addressed at some stage, perhaps by way of a public bodies order. This is a ludicrous and antiquated system and it is about time it was changed. I do not know how far it dates back but it bears no resemblance to present commercial reality. I am an accountant and it was three or four years before I could understand the accounting procedures used by local authorities. I am sure many members of local authorities have extreme difficulty in understanding this system. It seems to be an exercise in fooling local authority members who do not really know what is going on. County managers can do what they like with the figures because nobody really understands what they mean.
I visited England recently to look at how local authorities there operate. They use a more commercially based accounting system which we should consider adopting here. I should like to give an example of the accounting procedures used by local authorities here. The accounts in relation to materials and machinery are contained in the book of estimates which is produced at the end of the financial year. These accounts do not show what materials cost during the year. For example, items which have not been paid for, items which have been paid for in advance and items which are in stock are not taken into consideration. All machinery is supposed to be included in the revenue accounts but there are no procedures whereby local authorities can depreciate the value of machinery. This is ludicrous. They have to follow a fairly antiquated and circular route in writing off that material through the capital accounts over a period of time. This is nonsensical. We may also be shown a deficit of X number of pounds and told that it is not really a deficit. How are members of local authorities supposed to understand what is going on when they are told a deficit is not as bad as it looks because a payment from the Department of the Environment has been held up? We are told not to worry about those deficits because they are not really deficits.
The auditing of local authority accounts should be taken away from the local government auditor. As a Member said last night, it can take up to four or five years before some local authority accounts are audited. However, because of the way the system is structured at present I do not think any commercial firm would be capable of conducting an audit of local authority accounts. This system should be changed completely so that commercial firms would be in a position to carry out audits. Proper balance sheets setting out their exact position should also be produced by local authorities at the end of each year. They should give a list of their assets and liabilities in the same way as any commercial firm. This is not happening at present and such a system will have to be introduced at some stage. We should conform to the standard statements of accounting practice laid down by the various professional accounting bodies. If commercial firms have to conform to SSAPs, why do local authorities not have to do so.
I welcome section 50 which provides that a local authority shall publish an annual report. However, when we talk about an annual report we usually mean a financial annual report. Section 50 provides that a local authority shall publish a report of their activities for the preceding year. As a next step, the accounting mechanism should be reformed and incorporated in the annual report. I do not think anyone in this House would object to such a proposal. Local authority members would certainly not object to such a proposal because if this was done they would finally be able to understand the figures placed before them and county or city managers would not be able to pull the wool over their eyes, which I am sure is happening at present.
I want to be parochial in my comments about Part V which deals with the new boundary committees. This is one of the most important Parts of the Bill. Section 28 will empower the Minister to constitute new boundary committees to look at local authority boundaries. I have put down a motion on behalf of Waterford Corporation on this matter so that our city manager can start work on a submission to the Department of the Environment on a badly needed extension of the Waterford city boundary on the north side into County Kilkenny. We have been seeking this extension since 1979. I do not blame the Minister, or previous Ministers, for not granting this extension as there had been an extension on the other side into Waterford County Council. That extension was agreed between the two local authorities. If the local authorities concerned agree to the extension of a boundary, the Minister for the Environment can agree to it. As there has been no agreement in this case between the local authorities in Waterford and Kilkenny obviously the Minister for the Environment could not act. The setting up of boundary committees will mean that an independent body can look at the reasons for such an extension. I have no doubt that our case will stand up. Obviously, the Minister's hand will be strengthened if this independent body can look at the reason for an extension. If they recommend to him that something should be done it will be easier for me to accede to such a request than it as at present.
Local authority houses in Waterford are in the Kilkenny County Council area. I do not know where else that happens, except in Dublin which is unique. It is fairly ridiculous to allow that sort of situation to continue. We cannot develop our entrance to the city along the main Dublin to Waterford road as we do not have authority in that area. I am not knocking the other local authority, but their priority lies elsewhere. It would be in the interests of everybody if we were granted that extension. Section 31 of the Bill refers to the interests of effective and convenient local government. That extension of powers is what that would be. I am sure there are other areas which are crying out for extensions due to the expansion of many urban areas over the last number of years. This section will be generally welcomed.
Section 38 empowers local authorities to form advisory committees with reduced statutory functions. This would mean that Waterford County Councillors could sit down with Kilkenny County Councillors in committee, and that would perhaps advance what I am talking about here. In some areas that happens already. We have had several meetings with our counterparts in the Piltown electoral area of Kilkenny, but it is nice to see statutory effect being given to something like that. It is only common sense and it is something to be welcomed in this Bill. It will increase the spirit of co-operation between local authorities.
When local authority areas are extended compensation has to be paid. Nothing come without a price. If we or any other urban area were to extend, it would be at a price. Perhaps the Minister for the Environment would consider picking up the tab for that.
This Bill is only a start, as the Taoiseach pointed out, in shifting the real functions of the local authority from the city and county managers to the elected representatives who are the people who have to knock on the doors to be elected to local authorities. Neither the manager nor his staff have to go out knocking on doors. They are not answerable to anybody. The effort in this Bill to change that around is to be welcomed. Anyone reading the Bill will see that the words "reserved functions" pop up all over the place. This means that functions are being given back to the members of local authorities, and that is welcome. I do not have any quibble with the provision whereby Ministers or Ministers of State may not serve on local bodies. This is something that should have come in before. We were criticised because perhaps some of our Ministers or Ministers of State did not resign from local authorities and we in turn criticised the Opposition for the same thing when they were in power. Something has been done about it now and I have not heard complaints from anybody about it. Ministers and Ministers of State are busy enough without the added responsibility of serving on local authorities.
Many people are worried about the abolition of urban district councils and town commissioners. They are not to be abolished. Both the Minister and the Taoiseach made it clear that any town with an urban council, or borough corporation or a town commissioner will not lose them. Perhaps they might be extended but that would be a good thing as many of the urban areas have expanded rapidly over the last number of years and the greater part of the areas is now outside the various boundaries.
I am pleased at the advent of regional bodies. The RTOs failed before for a number of reasons, one of them being the lack of power. In these bodies the public representatives from the various local authorities will have a greater say on this occasion. They are the people who should serve on such bodies and it should lead to better co-operation between local authorities.
It is not often that I take a member of my party to task for something he said, but I have to disagree with Deputy John Browne in what he said last night. The Deputy complained about the south-eastern area. He was correct in that the south-east always seems to be forgotten. However, the Deputy said that when anything comes it comes to Waterford and that nothing comes to Wexford. I am being constantly told that Fianna Fáil are neglecting Waterford, which is the capital of the south-east, and I agree with that. We are being by-passed on many things, including decentralisation. We have been promised a decentralised office since 1979. To a large extent I blame the Opposition parties for dismantling the decentralisation programme between 1982 and 1987 but it is about time we got a decentralised office in Waterford. We do not have anything special in Waterford. They have the South Eastern Health Board in Kilkenny and they recently got the regionalised ordnance survey office. Deputy Browne seemed to have forgotten that the Environmental Protection Agency is to go to Johnstown Castle, which is in Wexford. I contend that it is Waterford that is not treated well, and not other areas in the south-east.
Section 37 which deals with devoltion of various powers and functions to committees is welcome. Public representatives are aware that at public meetings, politics being what it is, people will play to the gallery, but that much more work is done in committee away from the glare of publicity. Committees should be seriously considered by local authorities. I do not suggest that we try to hide anything, but decisions can often be hammered out more quickly in conmittee and then the decision can be conveyed afterwards. This section should be used as much as possible by the various local authorities.
Section 42 (5) is welcome. Up to now, the lord mayors of the five county borough councils were able to decide on the expenses of the mayor for a given year. They did not need the approval of the Minister for the Environment. However it would appear from a reading of section 42 that they will now need it. I contend that they should not be covered by its provisions given that this practice has been operated in a very satisfactory way up to now. It is important when a new provision relating to county council chairmen is introduced that the Minister monitor its implementation. However I am aware that he has no intention of interfering and needs to have this power in case somebody goes off the rails. As I said, I contend that lord mayors should not be covered by this provision and the legislation should be amended to take account of this.
Subsection (5) of that section reads:
In this section "the chairman", in relation to a local authority, includes, in the case of a borough, the lord mayor or the Mayor of such authority.
I think this refers to a county borough as there is no lord mayor in a borough. It appears that the subsection is flawed. Overall, I welcome the provisions relating to the payment of allowances to chairmen of local authorities.
I also welcome the proposal that county councils be given the power to confer honours. Why should they not have the same power to honour people as urban councils?
Reference has been made to section 4 motions. The provisions relating to these motions are to be welcomed. I have not heard anyone criticise them yet, but we will obviously have to wait and see how the system works. The local authority of which I am a member do not use section 4 motions but it has been suggested that it is quite easy for a member in one electoral area to put down a section 4 motion for a member of another electoral area which will not affect them. It is an eminently sensible suggestion that if a section 4 motion is to be put down that it should be put down by a member of the electoral area concerned. It has been mentioned that there have been abuses but this provision should help to eliminate them. As a result the public representative concerned will be held accountable within his own area.
The planning procedure needs to be reviewed. In England power rests with the local authority members when it comes to planning and and not with the officials. Furthermore they do not have a body like An Bord Pleanála to hear appeals. I think it was Deputy Yates who attacked that body yesterday, but I would have to agree with him that it is ridiculous that we cannot get any information from them and it is unbelievable in this day and age that it takes them so long to make a decision. That matter needs to be looked at.
The provisions relating to the tenure of office of city and county managers — they will now only be able to serve for seven years — are eminently sensible and are in line with the provisions relating to tenure of office of departmental secretaries. I am of the opinion that a city manager should be appointed half way through the life of a council and should seek re-appointment half way through the life of the following council and that the membership should have a say in the matter. Since it is possible that a city or county manager may not perform or get on with the elected members or do what they want, perhaps they should have the power to remove him from office. However, I am still happy with the provisions in the Bill under which the matter will go before the Local Appointments Commission. The provisions of this section will not affect anyone in office at present and I do not think they should affect any good city or county manager in the future. If they do their job properly they will be re-appointed.
In conclusion, this is eminently sensible legislation. I wish to emphasise once more that it is the first step in reforming local government. It is a good start and I look forward to further legislation to further reform local authorities.