Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 Nov 1993

Vol. 435 No. 4

Local Government (Dublin) Bill, 1993: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Mrs. Owen

It will not be possible to implement on the cheap the provisions of a local government reform Bill of this nature. It will be necessary to provide adequate resources to ensure that its provisions are properly implemented. It is timely to remind ourselves of the purpose of this Bill and, indeed, of local government reform. The Barrington report was published in 1992. The question is often asked, why is there a need for local government reform? I will remind people of the basic reasons for local government reform, the need to develop the democratic system; the problems associated with centralised government; the need for regional, local and community development and the need to make the best use of resources. For many years this country has been tardy in introducing proper local government reform. I welcome the emphasis of this Bill on dividing the large council into three localised councils. The essence of this move is that people will identify with them and see them as serving their local needs.

I wish to express certain reservations about the division of the council. It will be a sad day when Dublin as a county is disbanded. I welcome the fact that the names of the three new councils are not copperfastened in the Bill because I have strong reservations about them. The Minister referred to the provision which will permit a change in name in the future to be promoted by the relevant county council. It should be possible — and I believe it would be desirable — for us to reach agreement on the names of the new councils. If the Bill is enacted in its present form the new councils will not have proper identifiable names. All parties will be represented on the councils by their councillors and it should be possible for us to reach agreement on the names of the councils. The Fingal Council will be easily identifiable with that area, but there is a risk that the other councils will not be identified with Dublin county. If this happens, people will not be aware of the close association of the councils with County Dublin. My colleague, Deputy Doyle, asked if there would be three Dublin football teams — a Fingal GAA team, a South Dublin GAA team and a Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown GAA team — and whether footballers who now live in Fingal will in the future play for Fingal county. It is important that an identity of some sort be retained.

I am very disappointed that the Minister has used the term "cathaoirleach" to describe the people who will head up the new councils. It should be remembered that, apart from Dublin Corporation, these councils will be bigger than any other council in the country. Therefore, the term "mayor" or "lord mayor" would have been more appropriate. I want to give my reasons for saying this. I have been a member of Dublin County Council since 1979 and I am sick and tired of it being regarded as the poor relation and an adjunct to Dublin Corporation. Dublin County Council represents more people than Dublin Corporation. I am sorry to be parochial about this matter — I am sure my colleague on Dublin County Council who is in the House will make the same points — but the Lord Mayor of Dublin is regarded as the head of the city and county of Dublin while the poor chairman of Dublin County Council gets second billing. Dublin County Council has to fight for every bit of prestige it gets and it has to remind people that its chairman represents more people than the Lord Mayor of Dublin. We will put down amendments on Committee Stage dealing with the status of these new councils. We want to ensure that these councils are given a proper identity, something I know the Minister wants to do.

Like Deputy Doyle, I am very disappointed that the Minister has done no more than refer to the establishment of the regional authority. The Bill proposes that the new councils will be autonomous. Yet it goes on to say that certain functions will still be carried out on a Dublin basis. What authority will deal with issues such as waste disposal, sewerages schemes and waterworks and implement the development plan in a macro way as opposed to implementing three development plans? We do not know who will deal with such issues. All we can assume is that Mr. Davy Byrne from Fingal will administer one bit of the plan, Mr. Kevin O'Sullivan from Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown will administer another bit of it and Mr. John Fitzgerald will administer the rest. That would not be a satisfactory arrangement. It is important that we know the details of the regional authority for Dublin and the responsibilities of the new councils as quickly as possible.

I wish to refer to the issue of waste disposal. It has been proposed to dispose of the waste for Dublin city and county at a new site in Kill, County Kildare. As the Minister will be aware, this issue is extremely controversial, mainly because the site is outside the County Dublin border. Deputy Haughey said he welcomed this proposal and gave out about the Dunsink tiphead in Finglas. For many years Dublin County Council has been the only waste disposal authority for the city of Dublin. The council was very glad to carry out this function — councillors knew there were not adequate quarries and sites available within the city boundaries to build tipheads. All available sites in County Dublin have now been used up and it has been found necessary to build a tiphead outside the county boundary.

The controversy over this proposal shows how parochial and possessive people can become about their areas. One can only imagine the rows which will take place after the establishment of the three councils. For example, arguments may arise about who is responsible for filling potholes where one half of the pothole is in one council area and the other half is in another council area. The Minister does not seem to realise that the new county boundaries divide housing estates. We already know from experience the difficulties which can arise when one divides areas — for example, health board areas. In parts of Dublin city and county people living on a certain road in an estate are entitled to free fuel while people living on another road in the same estate have to beg and plead for the same benefits — they have to be means tested, etc. If housing estates and neighbours are divided in this way by the new county boundaries the situation will be totally untenable. I hope that the person who draws up the maps will set proper boundaries. In his speech the Minister referred to open spaces but he did not refer to housing estates. It is important that people who are part of a community remain part of it.

I wish to refer briefly to a number of what one might call housekeeping issues. Apart from his statement that the three new councils will each receive one-third of the money presently allocated to Dublin County Council, the Minister made no reference to resources. I do not think it will be possible for the new councils to work properly on this level of funding. The Minister was a member of a local authority and he knows how hard pressed local authorities are to finance the jobs they are given to do. I think that at present there are four dog wardens for Dublin county. How can one divide a dog warden between two councils? Will he be split up the middle or will he have to work a day and a half with each council? Each new council must have proper structures, otherwise the reforms will merely be on paper and they will not work in practice. As the Minister is well aware, the list of legislation passed to local authorities to administer has been getting longer and longer. When Ministers decide they do not want to implement legislation themselves they give local authorities responsibility for implementing it. However, local authorities do not get the necessary resources to implement this legislation. They do not even get the fines collected under that legislation. They get the £5 fine for litter but an £800 fine imposed on someone in court goes back to central Government. We must ensure that this legislation can be implemented and will bring about the changes people want to see.

The three new councils will start off with a debt of £22 millions on their backs. I ask the Minister to be realistic and not to strap the councils with this debt. He should find some way of writing off that debt, thus ensuring that the councils will be able to work. The councils will find it difficult enough to provide the services required without starting off with a debt of £22 million.

I wish to highlight other areas that the Minister is passing on to the three new councils. There is a good deal of tidying up being done in this legislation which I welcome. One of these is the ex-municipal area where the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown council will be responsible for the ex-municipal areas. It is obviously very unsatisfactory for one local authority to be responsible for maintaining pipes in the area of another local authority and it is appropriate that this is addressed in the legislation. However, we are talking about a very old network of water pipes in need of major overhaul and maintenance. Therefore, there is little point in asking a new council to deal with this problem because it will find itself up to its neck in debt. Pipes will burst and there will be huge traffic congestion, as we have seen many times around the Blackrock area, where traffic is delayed and the costs to industry and the business sector generally are enormous. The Minister should include in his proposals the provision of sufficient moneys to ensure that this new council can work. The Minister of State and the Minister will be indicated if they simply introduce legislation and leave the new councils to fend for themselves.

The other area I welcome is the extension of responsibility to the councils for water pipes to the curtilage of the garden walls of houses. At present, if the water pipe serving one's house has a stopcock across the road from the house and there is a burst under the road between the stopcock and one's house, the unfortunate householder is responsible for the repair of that burst pipe all the way into the house. If one is lucky enough to have a stopcock just outside the gate, the householder does not have to carry that cost. I am happy that this problem has been addressed in the legislation but again it will place an additional burden on the councils. Whereas it is appropriate to deal with the problem the Minister should not expect it to be done on the cheap because the engineers in my area have told me they will not be able to make such calls to restore water in the case of a burst pipe if the necessary resources are not made available to them.

I wish to refer to the issue of the transfer of responsibility for corporation houses from parcels of land which are now in the county area. This has been a major question in Dublin County Council for many years, particularly for the unfortunate tenants of the corporation houses. They do not know whether they are fish, flesh or good red herring because they come to us as councillors for assistance and we have to refer them to the corporation who tells them they are not its responsibility because they are in the county and so on.

In Fingal at the moment 1,600 council houses under our control are rented. When these regulations are drawn up an additional 3,500 corporation houses will come under our control. These houses carry a heavy maintenance burden because, unfortunately, many of the tenants are deserted wives, single parents or unemployed people who suffer great stress and cannot carry out the type of jobs that we expect people in public housing to do. Additional funding must be provided so that these houses can be properly maintained.

The library system will be divided and there will be three main librarians. Will the Minister reconsider, before this Bill is finally passed, the powers of these new councils with regard to the provision of libraries? There is no power of CPO to acquire land for the building of libraries and this has been a major problem over the years.

I hope the Minister will consider some of the points I made and I look forward to participating on Committee Stage of the Bill.

Mr. E. Walsh

I welcome this Bill because it contains many important details that will affect the new councils. I will mention briefly a passage from the Minister's statement this morning which is worth repeating:

The proposal to establish three new councils is designed to ensure more relevant and accessible local government structures with a sharper focus and operational capability to serve their areas. However, any proposals for reorganisation in Dublin must address the issue of co-ordination of major local authority services.

That statement highlights the whole issue, namely, making the three new local authorities, Fingal, Dublin South and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, relevant to the people in those areas.

The break-up of Dublin County Council is an historic event. Many people will be sad to see the old Dublin County Council disappear as it served its constituents well, many people refer nostalgically to the way in which it has maintained its housing stock, and the way that the county has developed in the rural areas. Naturally, after the long history of such an important local authority, it is sad to see it go, particularly the name Dublin. This will be missed greatly in relation to football teams and various other social activities and it is important, therefore, that the new local authorities show some evidence that they are still located in the Dublin area with all the traditions linked to the old organisation. I am happy that in my own council we will be referred to as South Dublin.

The break-up of Dublin Corporation involves the question of dividing approximately half a million people into three separate areas. That is a staggering figure when we consider the population of the country. Dublin County Council which, of course, will be in existence until the end of this year, has a budget of £150 million. That is a substantial amount of money to be administered by a local authority. The process that led to the break-up of the county council is worth mentioning because this is the first local authority that the State will have created of any great importance.

I was elected to Dublin County Council for the first time in 1991 and I was privileged to be part of that process and to have witnessed the first indications of the break-up. It was difficult to understand the process because it was such a complex organisation. However, I had been thrown in at the deep end by being elected chairman of the first South Dublin area committee which put me in a position to understand the process. This had to be understood quickly as there was a short timescale involved and the new council had to come into being by 31 December. Sadly, my office terminated in September and, therefore, I will not be the new chairman of the South Dublin County Council but I will have contributed by being chairman of the area committee.

It is also worth mentioning that the staff involved in the reorganisation are very special people who went about their work in a diligent manner. The councillors of South Dublin contributed in many positive ways towards that development. Most people tend to regard change as something negative and attempt to protect what is already in existence. The civic offices are well underway and are due to be completed by February 1994. I turned the first sod for those offices in March of last year in Tallaght, an indication of how quickly we have moved in South Dublin. On 1 January 1994 the area of South Dublin will come into existence and I hope this historic event will be marked by a suitable ceremony.

On the question of the boundary changes referred to in the Bill I consulted members, with the manager, in our area in South Dublin. We have agreed with neighbouring counties the revised county boundaries which, I presume, will be taken into account when defining the boundaries of the new South Dublin County Council.

The manufacture of a seal in South County Dublin involved a very difficult process. Indeed our gratitude should be expressed here to the Chief Herald who enabled us to go through that process. Many of us in the county council are not au fait with the skill of heraldry but, because of the nature of our work, we had to devise a seal. We were given the task of designing a new coat of arms. We obtained the advice of the Chief Herald and, after much deliberation, difficulty and controversy, finally secured a coat of arms which does not contain many humps like those on a camel but which is reasonable, looks traditional and will represent the new image of South Dublin. Indeed when we become a full county council, with its attendant status, I look forward to displaying it in many areas in the county especially through local organisations, at sporting activities and other various community projects so that the symbol of South Dublin will be readily recognised by them, thereby creating a good image of the new South Dublin County Council.

There appears to be a certain amount of controversy regarding the name of South Dublin. We in South Dublin fully discussed the matter. We agonised over the title, received many proposals, some excellent and some very difficult to comprehend. After all the deliberations, the vote was put and the motion passed that South Dublin be the name of our area committee. That was the democratic wish of the members of the South Dublin area.

I understand the geographic difficulties because at present, serving on Dublin County Council I represent an area and, in South Dublin, will represent the area of Terenure. The local electoral area of Terenure was mentioned but I should point out that that is not in Terenure. For example, I live in the district of Greenhills but the Greenhills electoral area is not located in my area. The boundaries of electoral areas do not correspond with the traditional ones. However, South Dublin is the name we have adopted; that is the name by which we shall be known henceforth. Indeed we are already known by that name because we publicised the fact that we are in the process of breaking up and that South Dublin is the area in which we are engaged in reorganising.

The question arises also of the chairmen of the new county councils. I had the privilege of chairing the first South Dublin area committee. The last chairman of the South Dublin area committee will be Councillor Don Tipping who will become the new Chairman of South Dublin County Council. I commend the work he has been doing since he succeeded me in bringing to finality this historic creation of South Dublin County Council.

I should like to refer to the question of mayoral status raised by Deputy Owen which is worthy of mention because County Dublin has always been regarded as the Cinderella of Dublin local authorities. No matter how well one presented one's local authority, how good one was at performing one's duties, no matter what one's status from the point of view of whomsoever one represented, the Mayor of Dublin always took precedence over us. Nonetheless the appointment of mayors of the new county councils might constitute a way of addressing that imbalance. I ask the Minister to consider that possibility, particularly since Dublin Corporation will have a mayor——

Mr. G. Mitchell

A Lord Mayor.

Mr. E. Walsh

I stand corrected by an ex-Lord Mayor of Dublin. I am sure the Lord Mayor of Dublin Corporation will work very closely with the chairpersons of the other county councils so it is right for us to have equal status and to have a Lord Mayor. I ask the Minister to seriously consider that possibility.

I should point out also that the manager in South Dublin, Mr. John Fitzgerald, brought enthusiasm to reorganisation and took his staff through a very difficult process, enabling them to deliver on the difficult decisions placed before them. He should be given credit for having pushed this issue to its limit and bringing us to the point of being a new county council. Without his enthusiasm and understanding we might not have reached this point because, on many occasions, councillors had very serious reservations and worries about certain things, but Mr. Fitzgerald was always available to meet personnel and to reassure us because of the confidence he had in his ability to deliver and that we were on the right road.

I should like to address some questions vis-á-vis the membership of the boards to which the new county councils will be entitled to nominate members the first being the vocational education committees in respect of which there is no provision to effect any change in the County Dublin Vocational Education Committee. We understand that changes will be introduced in that area fairly soon but, if we continue as at present, in South Dublin — I am not sure about the other areas — we would be concerned that we would not have adequate representation in the interim period on the old vocational education committee. Perhaps the Minister could consider the possibility of devising some temporary arrangement to ensure that the new South Dublin County Council will be represented on that old vocational education committee. The reason for that proposal is that it is one of the most important subcommittees of any local authority. It is also essential that South Dublin is given the status it deserves by being represented on a vocational education committee.

I note that section 18 makes consequential adjustments in relation to the membership of the Eastern Health Board but I understand that the question of the membership of the Governing Body of UCD has not been resolved. I note that section 22 of the Bill provides for the appointment of one member only. I should like the Minister to examine how he will deal with the other two areas — Fingal and South Dublin — who will not have nominees.

Problems have always been encountered when county boundaries were revised. Within the new county I envisage one of the problems being Dublin Corporation and the question of rezoning, halting sites, finance and — one of particular importance to the Tallaght area — a courthouse. I should like to deal with the question of Dublin Corporation first. The last Part of the Bill deals with the transfer of lands and housing from Dublin Corporation to the new South Dublin County Council, one of the most complex and important issues ever encountered by any local authority. Can Members of the House imagine a local authority operating in another local authority area without being in any way accountable to the latter for the actions of the former? One example is of land in Ballycragh, Tallaght, where 880 acres have been zoned for housing against the express wishes of the 26 members of South Dublin area committee which, in the draft development plan, had been zoned as a green belt area. At the same time, Dublin Corporation is proceeding to dispose of that land for housing totally against the wishes of the 26 members of South Dublin, a matter which must be addressed immediately.

On the matter of the transfer of the local authority housing stock — here I may be corrected if I am wrong — I understand that 500 houses must be dealt with. Indeed one of the greatest issues facing us in west Tallaght is the fate of those houses. For example, how will they be transferred? What will the cost be and who will bear it? What will the consequences be and what will comprise the final solution to this long saga? In south Dublin, in west Tallaght in particular, people are not represented by any public representative at local authority level. There are people in large areas of west Tallaght who, when they want to make representations to their local authority, submit them to Dublin County Council who, in turn, must make representations to Dublin Corporation. When there are difficult issues in regard to housing it is frustrating to take such a long tedious route in regard to simple matters. I am glad the Minister devoted a section to that important area.

I understand, and I would like to hear the Minister explain in more detail, that the managers will prepare a report, in consultation with the members of each of the four local authorities, which is the case in relation to the report prepared for the break-up of the councils. I understand this report will be organised by the four managers in consultation with the south Dublin, Fingal and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown members and that its proposals containing all the details of the transfer will be listed, accounted for and presented to the Minister for decision. I ask the Minister to consider carefully the final outcome of this operation because a solution to that problem will be the making or breaking of the new council in south Dublin. If we do not have a satisfactory resolution, this problem will bedevil us for the remainder of the century and the beginning of the new century. It is important to get this section right. I urge the Minister to use whatever influence and goodwill he can identify in Dublin Corporation to ensure that this happens. There is a large cost involved, which was not taken into account in discussions, in solving the problems associated with a population that feels alienated. It is very difficult to reassure them that after the transfer everything will be all right. We need to have some resources at our disposal to bring the reorganisation of houses and land of Dublin Corporation up to the standard that——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has some three minutes remaining.

Mr. E. Walsh

In regard to the rezoning of land, in Kiltipper, despite the best advice available from the manager of Dublin County Council and the planning officers, a section of land was rezoned. I ask the Minister to examine that issue with a view to resolving the problem, about which people are seriously concerned.

We have a large number of halting sites in the south Dublin area and, on the formation of the new council, there must be some mechanism to ensure an equitable distribution and that Dublin south does not have to bear the brunt.

There are costs involved in reorganisation and Dublin County Council will have a small charge to be accounted for in the reorganisation unit. Perhaps the Minister would take that into account when the new councils are being formed. If he could see his way to wiping out debts everybody would be delighted.

I should like to refer to the positive side of the whole development. We have the Square in Tallaght, the hospital, the civic offices which are almost complete, the regional technical college which is flourishing and the job creation possibilities arising therefrom. I look forward with confidence and anticipation to the formation of the new councils. I ask the Minister to do everything in his power to ensure their success, particularly Dublin South.

Mr. G. Mitchell

As a recent former Lord Mayor of Dublin I wish to put on record my appreciation to the officials of Dublin Corporation for their great service to the city and county of Dublin down through the years. Dublin Corporation is not without fault. I would be the first to criticise its faults and I have pointed them out in the past. It is a great honour to be a member of Dublin Corporation because it delivers so many important services in our capital city. As a member since 1979 and a recent Lord Mayor I know at first hand the dedication of the vast majority of the public servants who work in Dublin Corporation.

There are those who believe that my ambition to bring the Olympics to Dublin should be laughed at and dismissed out of hand. I do not know why people start from the basis of no confidence in themselves. All I want is to carry out a feasibility study to find out whether we can do it. The second feasibility study will be carried out because the first study was very positive. The reason I mention it is that I am not aware of any public or local authority service in the world which is better than ours. Of course there are faults but our public servants are first class. At both national and local government level they are dedicated to carrying out their duties in a fair and impartial manner.

Our politicians work harder than most other politicians in other countries. Both in the elected and the permanent public service — with all its faults — there is a dedication which should not be taken for granted. There are many other things we do better or as well as any other part of the world. For example, Dublin Corporation's parks department is one of the best in the world and if you were to seek one to equal it you would go to Dublin County Council. In this city we provide services to the very highest standards. In Northern Ireland they are self-congratulatory regarding the housing provided but the housing provided in this city and county is second to none. There may be a shortage of housing stock and a great need for refurbishment of housing stock, a point I will return to later. It is time we had more confidence in ourselves and in particular more confidence in Dublin. This is no mean city. We are aware of the quotation: "I am a citizen of no mean city". I have had the great privilege of being Lord Mayor of no mean city. Dublin city dates from the 8th century. We have had a Mayor of Dublin since 1229, a Lord Mayor of Dublin since 1665 so the title Mayor has been around for a very long time.

The ancient city of Dublin is the greatest cradle of English literature since Elizabethan England — those are not my words. We have had the greatest satirist in the English language, Jonathan Swift; the greatest orator in the English language, Burke, and three Nobel literature prize winners. This is the only city in the world which produced three Nobel literature prize winners. It may surprise some Members of the House and the public to know that James Joyce and Oscar Wilde were not among them. There were many other people who if they were in any other city of the world probably would have won a Nobel literature prize. Dublin always had more than its quota. Yeats, Beckett and Shaw, all Dublin born, are our three Nobel literature prize winners. The Gaelic League celebrated its centenary this year. It is time, given our great history, that we had more confidence in our capital city.

Anybody who dismisses out of hand the prospect of bringing the Olympics to Dublin, without any scientific research, should be put under the microscope and asked to account for themselves. We have formed the Dublin international sports council which has the unanimous support of every party and independent members of Dublin Corporation for its objectives of (a) bringing major international events to Dublin and (b) carrying out the Olympics feasibility study, for which we have raised commitments abroad of US$800,000. Not all the money will go on the study and some of it will be used to bring major events to the city.

Why do we want to bring major events to Dublin? Dublin has the highest rate of unemployment in the country. In previous unemployment crises the rate of unemployment in Dublin was lower than in the rest of the country, but this has changed and we need to promote Dublin. I believe the new local authorities need to play a more developmental and promotional role. As Lord Mayor I had the honour to speak to people abroad about Dublin — my comments on the Bill are mainly about Dublin city although my constituency comprises the city as well as parts of County Dublin. I tell them that we have one of the best educated populations in western Europe; a constant low inflation rate over a number of years; a debt-GNP ratio which is decreasing; that there is strong support on a cross-party basis for the control of public expenditure; that interest rates are low except for the temporary aberration which affected countries in the EC: and that our growth rate over a number of years is twice that of the European Community. When they hear that they say that must be a marvellous economy, but I have to tell them we have an unemployment problem.

Why have we an unemployment problem? Part of the reason is that people are not investing in Dublin and another reason — these are not my words but those of the Norwegian economist who carried out a special report for the National Economic and Social Council — is that new ideas and innovations cannot come through the system because there are so many people waiting to knock them. This brings me back to my idea of promoting Dublin as a major sports centre and the possibility of hosting the Olympics. I have not asked for a penny of public money to carry out a feasibility study on holding the Olympics in Dublin, but major corporations indicated they would support such a study because it is important to talk in this way about Dublin.

This is no mean city and if people hear about us because we are running major sporting events such as the Tall Ships regatta, the Tour de France, the world boxing challenge, the upgraded Dublin City Marathon and other events which hopefully will come our way such as the world equestrian cup and the womens' world cup hockey, what will happen? I believe what has happened in Manchester will happen. People said "God help Manchester, it did not get the Olympics". But Manchester has helped itself and there has been £300 million in forward investment and investment in all sorts of facilities which it had not got previously. Hyatt Hotels, when considering where to build hotels over the next ten to 15 years, are not looking at Dublin, Belfast or Beirut. We do not deserve that treatment. When they see the glass they say it is half empty, but it is half full and we can top it up. That is the reality of the situation. However, if they only hear about us every time a bomb goes off in Belfast or somebody is kidnapped on the streets of Dublin or similar incidents, that forms their attitude.

They do not know Dublin and I have to explain all the economic indicators to them. They need to hear that Dublin can attract international sporting events to the country and that we can run them. I am not saying we can do all of them and we are working on the feasibility study. But we will attract major events and then we will start to see investment and some of our own business people who have money will start to invest here. Look what has happened in Lansdowne Road. The IRFU and the FAI got together and agreed to floodlight the Lansdowne Road grounds, and they have invested the money in it. The GAA is also investing money in Croke Park, and when the work is completed there the stadium will have 25 per cent more seating capacity than the main stadium in Barcelona. The GAA thinks that talk of bringing the Olympics to Ireland is a good idea.

There is now talk of bringing a European cup final to Dublin in the near future. When I was a boy that would have been unthinkable. Indeed, when I was grown up it was unthinkable that the Eurovision Song contest would be staged in Millstreet, and indeed all our eyes were wiped when it was staged there. That taught us a lesson or two and was a source of great encouragement. It has never been envisaged that an airport would be built at Knock. Indeed I recall the time when there were strange ideas about the provision of an airport at Shannon.

It is time we had more confidence in our city and county. I hope these new authorities will become developmental authorities that will promote Dublin. Somebody needs to speak for Dublin. I do not have a difficulty with any TD speaking for his region, indeed Members are entitled to do so but Members such as myself, and others, have been lacking in not fighting for Dublin, it is time we put the case again.

The NESC report is right: people keep changing the grounds for denouncing ideas such as conducting an Olympics feasibility study and have a vested interest in stopping the study being carried out. They are replicated right throughout the system. The NESC report is right. There is not only the lack of encouragement for innovation but the blocking of any innovation by vain people who want to hold their fiefdoms and travel the world as if they were members of some royal family. They need to be taken on.

We need innovation, and let nobody tell Members of this House that we are not as capable as they are in Melbourne. Melbourne was founded in the 19th century, it has already run the Olympics and wants to do so again. The question is not whether we run the Olympics but whether we have the confidence to find out that we can do it and that we stop those people who are knocking the city and the country. We are competent, able and resourceful. People of the calibre of Dr. Ryan, Kevin Heffernan, Ronnie Delaney, Pat McQuaid and Mary Finan, sound business and sporting people, are on the committee. We have the support also of the Dublin City Council on an all party basis, the support of the Dublin Chamber of Commerce and the support of the Dublin trade union representative, the representative of the IDA and the representative of the Ports and Docks Board on the committee on the economy of Dublin. Do Members think those people are fools? Do Members think that the people who gave us the money for this survey are fools? No, they are people with confidence in Dublin. It is time we displayed a similar confidence in our city. We should not necessarily be competing with the other regions because we want to compete with the rest of the European Community. Manchester and other cities are out there doing their best to do business. Birmingham has a full time representative in the European Community.

During my term as Lord Mayor I set up the Lord Mayor's Commission on Reform of the Corporation and the Lord Mayor's Commission on Housing and I am grateful to members of the City Council who on a cross-party basis supported my initiative. The Lord Mayor's Commission on Reform of the Corporation proposed mainly internal reforms within the Corporation, which I hope will be encouraged. I also hope that the level of expenses paid to the members of Dublin City Council will reflect what is expected of them under the proposals in that document so that they will be able to slimline their duties and spend more time at fewer meetings discussing matters relating to Dublin city. They should be paid a decent level of expenses for their work. It is extraordinary that the largest local authority in the country pays the lowest out-of-pocket expenses to its members.

As that report stated, it is time to consider a longer period than one year for the Lord Mayor of Dublin to hold office and also for the chairpersons of the new authorities. Elections of the Mayor of Jerusalem and of the Mayor of New York took place yesterday. The Mayor of Jerusalem was replaced after 28 years in office and the Mayor of New York had held office for a period of approximately four years. If we are serious about promoting Dublin the Lord Mayor and chairpersons of the new authorities should hold office for more than one year. Those persons will not have to compete with the Minister — their areas of responsibility are local rather than national government matters. If the Minister for the Environment was appointed on an annual basis, what advances could be made? Thankfully, the present Lord Mayor of Dublin has been trying to maintain a certain level of continuity during his term of office, but the next Lord Mayor could hold completely different views. The term of office for the Lord Mayor of Dublin should exceed more than one year. Some people may disagree because they have not had an opportunity to be Lord Mayor and I have. It is pointless appointing people to that office as a reward for services. Such appointments are an opportunity to serve, and without begging the Government of the day, a great deal could be done for the prestige of the office to promote the city's needs and the same applies to the new local authorities.

The report of the Lord Mayor's Commission on Housing is probably the best housing report published since 1914. It contains a number of imaginative proposals. I hope that new ways of providing funding for housing will be addressed by the Minister and that the contents of that report will be taken on board. One of the members of that commission has since been appointed assistant city manager for housing. I hope he is requested to implement the general contents of that report, but in particular the proposals dealing with the need to refurbish inner city flats. I appeal to the Minister to put on the agenda a seven year plan to refurbish all inner city flats. The nature of those flats contributes to the problems of crime and drugs because their inhabitants are living in dark, dank surroundings with broken sewers. Those flats must be refurbished. The report outlines how that can be done and it must be given priority if this city is to remain a living city.

I am concerned about the transfer of housing and the landbank to the county authorities, but I recognise the problems associated with this. Dublin Corporation owns many houses in Tallaght for which it collects rent and is responsible for maintaining. Local councillors have no say in regard to those houses. That is an anomalous position and must be changed. However, if it is changed in such a way that the city has nowhere to house its population many problems will arise, because there is not much space in the inner city to build new houses. The Minister should consider a common housing list for the citizens of both Dublin city and county so that people can be considered for housing in any area of Dublin irrespective of where they live. The houses in Tallaght owned by the corporation should form part of the Dublin housing list; they should not be restricted to housing people from the inner city. Councillors in County Dublin must have a say and people from the inner city are entitled to be housed. A common housing list for all citizens of Dublin would resolve the problem. I hope the Minister will consider that matter.

Mr. Flood

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate for the Dublin region. This Bill involves a process of continued reorganisation of local government which began more than ten years ago. We are now moving towards the final lap in relation to the structures. What we are discussing here will have major repercussions for communities in all of County Dublin and some of its surrounding regions.

The people of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown fared well to retain the old name for its new local authority and the same applies to Fingal. However, I am unhappy with the South Dublin name, which is merely a geographic location. Many other names could have been chosen for the local authority and I hope this is not the end of the matter so far as the name of that authority is concerned. The name of "Belgard" was proposed at a committee and I am sure many other names were put forward. I would like the South Dublin authority to be given a title which would be more apt as the local authority develops its own tradition and history. I know the Minister is amendable to such a change eventually.

In the short time available to me I want to refer to a few areas, some of which have already been referred to, but I would like to bring my own thinking to bear on them. The first relates to housing. Deputy Mitchell, who has wide experience in that area as a member of Dublin Corporation, to some extent put forward the corporation's case. The officials of Dublin Corporation have done tremendous work in times of great social change in this city in the past 20 years. They have had to grapple with what would be termed in any major city as housing problems of great magnitude and they have done a good job.

In so far as housing is concerned, the main difficulties relate to county areas and the fact that Dublin Corporation developed 7,500 houses in County Dublin for us by tenants on the Dublin Corporation housing list. Those houses were built to meet a specific need for people living in inner city areas in unhealthy housing conditions and who needed decent accommodation. That objective was certainly achieved by Dublin Corporation. Perhaps it was the background to the development of the housing stock and our failure to understand the social consequences of such large scale housing being provided by the corporation away from its administrative area, and our failure to understand the effects of such housing policy that gave rise to the problems in the county. The first problem arose for the tenants many of whom were plucked from a city environment in which they had the support of the extended family and knew the local community and transported to newly developing towns like Tallaght, Clondalkin and Blanchardstown. The result was that the whole social fabric of the life they lived — I accept that it led to a considerable amount of ill health because of bad housing conditions — was destroyed albeit for the best of reasons. Unfortunately, at the time, social scientists failed to make their voices heard to prevent the major catastrophe that developed. That is why there was so much unhappiness and discontent in the newer towns and in the corporation housing developments, a discontent that was generally not found in its sister authority housing developments, those built by Dublin County Council, because the people in those developments were from the area or had an affinity with the county. That discontent was one of the social consequences of the corporation policy.

No matter how fair-minded one tried to be in examining the corporation's record in the county, one would have to conclude that the corporation did not provide the resources to maintain and manage their housing estates in the county. There was probably a good reason for that from the point of view of the corporation in that I understand that the net rental income from a local authority house is far below the cost of maintaining the house. The average rent per week is £7 per house and the average maintenance cost per week is between £12 and £13. Financially there was nothing in it for the corporation to encourage it to maintain its housing stock.

If one examines the structure of the corporation's effort to provide maintenance and management of the housing stock one will see that it was very limited. Usually an old house taken over in the acquisition of land, was turned into a housing maintenance depot. One could not possibly provide adequate management and maintenance to a large housing stock through such limited facilites. Another point is that the corporation would build 1,500 houses as part of one housing estate and that would end its commitment to the area. It would not see that it had a responsibility to assist in the provision of community centre facilities, proper development of parks and local spaces. Generally speaking that was left to the county council.

Mr. Broughan

We developed Tallaght centre; it was our land and our negotiations.

Mr. Flood

That is a very interesting interjection. The difficulty is that the corporation continues to draw out of the Tallaght town centre a very substantial rental income which, as far as I can see, is not ploughed into the local community. Those of us who represent Tallaght, and the people who live in Tallaght, resent the fact that Dublin Corporation benefited financially to such a great extent because 15 years ago they had the money to buy huge tracts of land in the county. The corporation now feels justified in clawing back from the investment of 15 years ago half of the total rental income generated by the town centre. If I asked the corporation to spell out how it was using that money I would be surprised if it was using any perceptible amount of it in Tallaght, Clondalkin or Blanchardstown. That is our problem with regard to the development of the Square and the town centre lands in Tallaght and the corporation's involvement in it.

The transfer of the housing stock in the county from the corporation to the county and the three new councils will pose a problem for the corporation in meeting the housing needs of applicants for accommodation. We will have to try to come to some arrangement in that regard. The suggestion by Deputy Mitchell that we develop a common housing list for all of County Dublin has been around for some time, but it is only in that way that we will be able to accommodate the needs of Dublin Corporation who will still have substantial numbers on its housing list. In any transfer of property that issue will have to be taken into account. I hope the report to come from the new councils in conjunction with Dublin Corporation will address this issue quickly.

The Minister referred to the need for co-ordination. Without co-ordination he will have serious difficulties. Each local authority should provide all the services expected of such a body without relying on contracting out to other local authorities for services. If we are to have genuine independent local authorities they ought to have the capacity to plan and to provide all the services which the general public expect of them. The fire service, for instance, is provided under contract to Dublin County Council by Dublin Corporation. Under this legislation, Dún Laoghaire Corporation is to contract with the corporation to provide a service. From an efficiency point of view that may have some merit but, apart from extinguishing fires, a fire service provides a range of services associated with fire safety in local areas. In considering the delivery of fire services in the regions it would be better for each county council to provide the service independently because Tara Street will appear remote as the command and control centre from places like Blanchardstown, Tallaght, Clondalkin and north County Dublin.

Planning and development has caused serious concern over the past number of years. With the outward development pressure from the city many difficulties have occurred and been associated with the need for good planning and development. The system is gradually being brought into disrepute. In the five year development plan, and the reviews of it, we need to critically examine the operation of that aspect of local authority development and provision of services, particularly due to the ad hoc manner in which development is taking place. In this regard rezoning seems to be based on land ownership. I was a member of Dublin County Council for 12 years and always considered the requirements in a particular area rather than allow development extend into the country and be based on land ownership, hedgerow contours and access to a piece of ground. It always struck me that that was an unusual way to proceed in planning the development of the city as it expanded outwards. I hope therefore that will be done. Perhaps the issue could be considered in a consultative process, with the new local authorities indicating once and for all the way forward.

The new county councils will be expected to touch the lives of the people they serve. However, I put it to the Minister that there is a great number of weaknesses in the current legislation which need to be addressed. First — this impinges on my own area — there are defects in the Animals Act, 1985. As those of us who live in the outer regions of Dublin know, that legislation was introduced to deal with the serious problem posed by wandering horses, particularly in some of the bigger housing estates on the outskirts of Dublin. Unfortunately, the penalty to be imposed on an owner who allows an animal to wander along the roadside, in an open space or in a housing estate is so small as to be meaningless. It is my understanding that the Minister for Justice would have to amend the regulations before pound keepers or the local authorities could charge for the service they provide. This would be separate from the pound fee of £27. If the local authorities were allowed to recover their collection costs this problem, which is the source of concern for residents from the point of view of the safety of children, would be eliminated overnight.

We also need to address the issue of the inability of local authorities to draw up bylaws speedily. Those of us who have served on a local authority know that from time to time they are required to draw up bylaws dealing with various aspects of their operations. For example, they are required to draw up bylaws for public parks. This can be a torturous process, given that the bylaws have to be submitted to the Minister for Justice, the Garda Síochána and the Minister for the Environment. As it takes so long to complete the process, people soon become disenchanted, particularly if there are delays in implementing the bylaws, which are designed to benefit local communities.

At present bylaws are being drawn up — this will be of interest to those of us who live in the Dublin region — to prohibit the parking of heavy goods vehicles in housing estates. Even though this is a major problem it will take many years to complete the process. The bylaws in draft form were submitted to the Department of the Environment. The Department transferred them to the Garda Commissioner, who will return them to the Department of the Environment, which in turn will send them back to the local authority. It should be borne in mind that many children live in housing estates and there is a danger they could run out from behind or under one of these heavy goods vehicles. Indeed, there has been a number of fatalities. I cite these issues as reasons for strengthening these new authorities and giving them more teeth.

We also need to address the question of funding — the old chestnut. In the mid-eighties the allocation made from the Exchequer began to fall. Even though some minor adjustments have been made from year to year, until such time as the local authorities can raise finance to complement the funds allocated from the Exchequer they will always find themselves in a difficult and precarious position financially and will not be able to meet the legitimate needs or provide the services people are entitled to in their respective administrative areas.

In conclusion, I hope these new authorities will be very active within their own areas, provide the facilities that one would normally expect them to provide, be keen to implement whatever supporting legislation is enacted and become developmental authorities in their own right in order to increase commercial activity, thereby increasing the number of employment opportunities. That is the role I would like to see them play in the future. I wish the Minister well in implementing the legislation and ask him to take into account the points raised by those of us who have experience in this area.

Mr. Currie

The more I listen to the debate the more I wonder if we are doing the right thing in seeking to put this legislation through the House. I must admit that this thought crossed my mind a number of times as I listened to the previous speaker, Deputy Flood. He mentioned that there is a need to address the question of finance. He is right; if local government is to be independent it must be able to raise funds and spend the money in accordance with its priorities. However, that issue is not dealt with in the legislation. The previous Government gave a commitment that it would reorganise local government. I wonder if we are doing the right thing in seeking to put this legislation through the House in advance of the major reorganisation of local government given that crucial issues, such as the question of finance, will have to be addressed.

I also listened to what my colleague, Deputy Gay Mitchell, had to say. He placed the emphasis on the necessity for co-ordination. In this regard both he and the previous speaker mentioned, in view of the problems encountered, that there is a need for a common housing list in Dublin and that problems might arise in relation to the fire services. Therefore are we doing the right thing in dividing up the country four ways?

I believe — Deputy Mitchell also made this point — that we do not put Dublin first. It is not generally understood just how great the problems are in Dublin in terms of unemployment, crime and other social problems to which the previous speaker referred. It is everyone's capital city, not just Dubliners. Insufficient emphasis has been put on its problems.

Other areas have their lobby groups, some of which have been very successful; others not so successful, as we saw this week in relation to the Shannon stopover. However, the west has been particularly successful because its public representatives and local communities have made the effort, but we never see a similar lobby group in Dublin. If one lifts a local newspaper in County Mayo or County Cork one will often see photographs of a local gaelic football team along with the number of players on that team who have emigrated. One does not see anything similar in Dublin, but every day there could be photographs of that sort in Dublin in regard to emigration. Is there anything in this Bill which will remedy that and enable our capital city to take up its premier position? Part of the problem is that in the past — and in the future if this Bill goes through — Dublin has been divided between the corporation, the county council and Dún Laoghaire. Now we are to have four local authorities. Who will speak for Dublin in that context? I would prefer to see one greater Dublin authority linked to maybe a dozen local district councils which would give local accountability and local representation. Then Dublin, as the capital city could speak with one voice to the rest of the country and the rest of the world.

There was a reference to the election of mayors in Jerusalem and in New York and a valid point was made in that respect. I would like to see the Mayor of Dublin directly elected by the citizens of Dublin, which would give the first citizen of this city some clout and authority. Making him directly responsible for running the city would add to the efficiency of our local government. Instead of going in the direction of this Bill we ought to be going in the opposite direction. Dublin is discriminated against, but that is largely because Dubliners discriminate against themselves; they do not put their city first and they do not have the right sort of authority.

That is not to say I am against democratic local government and some of my remarks about a directly elected mayor bear that out. I also strongly believe in subsidiarity, a word that came from our colleagues and neighbours in the European Community, which caused concern to some people. By "subsidiarity" I mean that public services should be involved to the lowest practicable level at which they can be discharged efficiently and effectively.

I wonder about the relevance of our local authorities to the electorate at present. To what extent do people think they are getting good service from their elected councillors? A recent survey in the Evening Herald came to the conclusion that two-thirds of Dubliners have no faith in their local councillors and that more than half do not know the name of even one of their local councillors in their ward.

Mr. Broughan

Do they know the names of their TDs?

Mr. Currie

The Evening Herald did not do a survey into that.

Mr. Broughan

In Dublin West?

Mr. Currie

There are some prominent members in Dublin West. More than half of Dubliners do not know the name of even one of their county councillors even in cases where they are also elected Members of this House and, to that extent, get greater publicity. That is appalling. It suggests that the cynicism I detected at a very early stage of my political career on this side of the Border is rampant. Nor am I too sure that our councils, the county council and the corporation, deserve to be called efficient. I have heard praise of the councils for their efficiency and, I suppose, they are reasonably efficient. Maybe I require a bit more. Was it Swift who said: "For forms of Government that fools contest, that which is best administerd is best"? I do not necessarily agree with all that, but there is something to be said for it. I looked through my constituency files and I see that I wrote a letter to Dublin County Council of 8 February last about a roadway in my constituency where I personally counted 14 rotten trees, some of which have fallen. Before that others had also fallen across the road and they are a great danger to people driving and walking along it. I first wrote on 8 February and again on 31 March. The trees are still there but I have not even received a reply from Dublin County Council telling me what action, if any, it intends to take on this matter. That is not the only example. I could give many, and I have given recent chairpersons of Dublin County Council examples of letters that have not been replied to. Maybe they just pay attention to elected councillors. I am at a disadvantage, being a second class citizen; I am only a TD for the area. Therefore, I am not sure of their efficiency; nor am I too sure of their sensitivity to community groupings.

Nowadays it is a very important function of local authorities to be sensitive to the many hundreds of community groupings. That is one of the differences I noticed from the situation North of the Border were there are not so many community groupings. Maybe because of the greater availability of finance from Great Britain, community groupings are not thought to be necessary. Also, because of the divided community in the North there is sometimes difficulty in relation to community groupings. Certainly, in the context of the number of meetings one is expected to attend, the multiplicity of community groupings is more noticeable in Dublin. In those circumstances it is very important that the local authority is sensitive to the wishes and demands of those community organisations. I am not sure they are sufficiently sensitive and maybe that is one of the reasons we should have one greater Dublin authority with, in addition, quite a large number of local councils. Whatever happens there is a need for increased sensitivity.

The transfer of houses to the authority in which they happen to be located makes sense. There has been an anomaly up to now. I listened with great interest to what Deputy Flood said about previous housing policy and the moving of people from city centre areas to areas where they have not roots, where there is no community development, etc. I wonder why people did not learn from the experiences elsewhere, in Britain, in the United States and other places where such a policy was followed.

Mr. Broughan

Would the Deputy put them in skyscrapers?

Mr. Currie

No, but there is a lot to be said for terraced houses. Why is there objection to terraced houses? Great communities live in terraced houses which are fine once they are equipped with modern amenities.

I hope the new authorities will provide libraries, particularly in Lucan and Palmerstown which have sought such facilities for many years.

The Minister will be aware of my concern for the protection of the tremendous amenity of the Liffey Valley. It is a landscape of both national and international importance, our equivalent to the Loire Valley. Despite the greed of developers, and the stupidity of some of our councillors, this tremendous amenity still survives. It is our responsibility to hand it on to those who will live here hundreds of years from now.

Unfortunately, the Minister's proposals in this Bill in dividing the former county council area into three councils will increase rather than diminish the threat to the Liffey Valley. No one local authority will have responsibility for conserving its unique character. Coordinating committees or arrangements for co-ordination between county managers are no substitutes for one authority having overall control. If the Minister intends to push ahead with these proposals he should consider as an alternative, albeit, an unsatisfactory one, the creation of a body with sole responsibility for the preservation of the Liffey Valley and its amenities.

Other questions arise in the context of this Bill over the future of the Liffey Valley. The last Government found it necessary, because the council was behaving more like an estate agency than a local authority, to introduce limitations on the use of section 4 motions. The Local Government Act, 1991 specified that section 4 motions had to have the support of three-quarters of the total membership of a local authority. It is illogical that such a requirement did not include re-zoning motions which merely require a simple majority of those present at any particular council meeting. Will the Minister use the opportunity of this Bill to close that loophole?

Again, the recent re-zonings by Dublin County Council have emphasised the importance of the special amenity area order for the Liffey Valley. I shudder to think what certain councillors may have done if this order had not been in existence. The order was, of course, very restrictive and there is a necessity to extend it to cover a wider area of the valley. How will the special amenity area order procedure be affected by the division of the old council into three new councils? Under section 42 of the 1963 Act, as amended by section 40 (a) of the 1976 Act, a planning authority may declare an area to be an area of special amenity and before it becomes effective it must be confirmed by the Minister. Which new Dublin authority will have responsibility for declaring an extended area of the Liffey Valley to be an area of special amenity? Again, under the Act the Minister is empowered to direct a planning authority to make a special amenity area order in relation to a specified area. If the Minister is so minded which of the new local authorities will he direct in relation to the Liffey Valley?

I hope the Minister will give a positive reply to those questions and assure me, and those in the community seriously concerned about what has happened in the Liffey Valley and afraid of what may happen in the future, that every possible effort will be made to preserve the unique character of this great national inheritance.

However, any commitments he may give in these respects do not lift from his shoulders the responsibility to look critically at the re-zonings carried out by Dublin County Council and to utilise his power to require it to vary proposals which are inimical to the amenities of the valley. I hope in making this demand of the Minister I will have the support of other Members representing Dublin West who signed a public statement urging the members of Dublin County Council to reject all pressures and applications for re-zoning in the Liffey Valley.

I trust the matters I raised interest the Minister and I believe I raised some matters that are different from those highlighted by other Members.

Mr. Broughan

Many remarks I wished to make about the Bill were anticipated by my colleague from Dublin West, Deputy Currie. This Bill represents the implementation of an insipid report, the Barrington report. Fundamental issues regarding local government, particularly local government in the Dublin region, were not addressed to any great extent by that report. This matter may have been raised by Donal de Buitléar and I am not aware of any councillors who were involved in compiling the report. The result has been that today there is a minimalist approach to local government reorganisation and reform. I appreciate that under the Programme for a Partnership Government it is intended to sign the European Charter on local self-government, but local government has little power here. Deputy Currie referred to some issues which caused this. Comparing Ireland to other European countries including Britain, which is a fairly centralised State, and with the possible exception of France, one will find that not much power is given to local councillors to effect serious changes in their localities. I realise that the Minister and the Ministers of State intend to transfer more powers in respect of traffic management, the environment and many aspects of what were in the past executive powers, to local authorities. However, the overwhelming impression is that little power is devolved to local government and this Bill does not address this matter, particularly in relation to the key issues of funding and responsibility.

As the leader of the Civil Alliance group on Dublin Corporation, I am aware that the issue of funding is a vital one. The corporation do not have service charges and we have not had them since my predecessor, the present Minister for Finance, Deputy Ahern, negotiated their abolition approximately seven years ago. Since then we have had to eke out an existence, with severe restraint being exercised by some officials, to keep the programme of civic government on the rails. For three-and-half bitter years before this Partnership Government entered office the corporation received no increase in its rate support grant. The grant amounted to £23 million each year for a period of years. Unfortunately in this area the dead hand of the Department of the Environment is visible restricting any genuine local development in our city. This Government increased the rate support grant by 2.5 per cent, bringing it to £23.5 million. The budget of that authority for 1993 was £220 million an indication that Dublin Corporation is the largest local authority and has the largest workforce. It is faced with the prospect of running the capital city on a restricted budget. However, the Bill does not attempt to address the question of funding. The Barrington report revealed that county councils recieve 44 per cent of their income from Government. Dublin Corporation receives less than 20 per cent of its income from Government and it is expected to run and develop the capital city. If the corporation received financial support equivalent to the amount it collected in domestic rates which were abolished in 1977, it would now receive a Government grant of between £55 million and £60 million.

This Government must address the problem of local government funding. Some of my colleagues in Dublin City Council have proposed repeatedly — it deserves examination — that a set portion of VAT be allocated to local government, perhaps 10 per cent or £200 million. This money should be allocated to all the local authorities each year. Nobody expects fundamental reform of local government funding until there is reform of national funding. I would ask the Minister for Finance to bear in mind on completion of the Estimates that there is need for fundamental reform of personal taxation, particularly of the low paid, if people are to make direct contributions to local government.

The Bill makes no attempt to address the fundamental issue of responsibility. A previous Lord Mayor spoke on this matter this evening. The reason the spirit of Frank Hall, Ballymagash politics, is still around is that there is no clear centre of power in local government. What happens is that 37 mandarins in the Department of the Environment tell the city managers what to do — the dead hand is inflicted on our land. Responsibility should be transferred to the localities. An official in the Department of the Environment oversees the work of our city and county managers. Why is that necessary? Why can these people not carry out their responsibilities under their own steam? The question of responsibility for local government has not been addressed, certainly in Dublin and, I imagine, in other counties.

In an addendum to the Barrington report, Dr. Donal de Buitléar proposed that Dublin and other counties should have an elected chief executive. Those of us who have served in local government understand the reason behind that proposal. At meeting after meeting officials have one agenda while political representatives have a different agenda; it is a game of cat and mouse. Recently in Dublin, in anticipation of the new councils, the cat and mouse game moved into the general arena, with Dublin County Council carrying out functions for the city and Dublin City Council carrying out functions for the county, with nobody taking responsibility.

The 1955 Act gives power to dismiss a county manager and his officials, but this is a power which people would be very loath to use. In general the executive function lies with management and very often responsibility for local government falls between two stools. We should consider in the future the possibility of allowing people of vision to stand for election to be leaders of local government. I know that we would have to consider the dual mandate — this matter is referred to in the Barrington report — which people would be loath to give up, and that certain arrangements would have to be made for Deputies who would no longer be in touch with the run-of-the-mill matters of local government. In Britain nobody expects county councillors to be Members of Parliament. New thinking is required in the area of responsibility and funding.

I share the reservations of my two colleagues in that Dublin is not four counties or four regions — there is one Dublin. It is a single civic and cultural entity and it should be ruled as such. When local government originated in 1898 the British had the sense to operate a single local authority in Dublin and there were various townships around the city under the control of the corporation. Since 1922, as Declan Kiberd has very eloquently said, Dublin has been a centre dominated by a periphery. The people who represent Dublin are getting tired of the position whereby we do not get our fair share of national funding. There are huge districts with 90 per cent unemployment. While I welcome the increase in Structural Funds, we are still getting only 84 per cent per capita. If that position prevailed in Connemara, Mayo or elsewhere there would be grave dissatisfaction with such an unfair division of Government funds.

It is time Dublin politicians stood up for their city. The division of the city is a device to weaken its voice. In the past people said there could not be a single Dublin council with 120 or 130 members. In Moscow there are about 500 members on the council and in Paris there are several hundred members on the local authority. Before Lady Thatcher abolished the old London council it was comprised of well over 100 people. If we had local government with real power, taking real action and with its own funding arrangements, there is no reason that there could not be a single voice for Dublin, with perhaps an executive elected for three to five years. I do not accept that Dublin is too big. The real reason for not wanting a single authority is, as a former corporation official said, that Dublin, because of its big population, is perceived in this House as a threat to national Government. However, that is not the case. I have no desire to run Wexford, Kildare, Tipperary or Wicklow, but I want to run Dublin and local politicians should have a real say in running the city.

Dublin Corporation, because it consists of 7,000 of the 10,000 people working in the local authorities in Dublin and because it runs the fire service, water service, library service and many other services, has principal responsibility for Dublin, but areas such as Clondalkin, Tallaght and so on are perhaps not fully represented. The case I make is strengthened by the fact that many people said here today that we should have a single housing authority covering the four new councils. Similarly, instead of having three vocational education committees, one single authority would suffice. The division of Dublin authorities gives rise to many problems. For example, proposals were put forward recently to rezone massive areas in Coolock and Baldoyle on the border of my constituency, proposals which would greatly affect my constituency in terms of housing, roads and other areas. However nobody informed us of this matter until the night before the Baldoyle rezoning when I received a note from a developer informing me of what was happening. There is no co-ordination in these matters and that is unacceptable.

I do not accept the logic of this Bill. I will have to support it but I will be working to change it. One glaring anomaly is the fact that the Howth ward is included with Fingal County. There is no logic whatsoever behind this provision. The northern boundary of the city, including the areas of Donaghmede, Kilbarrack, Sutton, Baldoyle and Howth, is a single entity and these areas were much more effectively run under the control of Dublin Corporation. In the last number of years there has been much unhappiness with many of the decisions taken. I am glad the Minister, Deputy Smith, acted decisively to bring to a conclusion the recent flooding saga in the area. There was great dissatisfaction with the response of Dublin County Council to the tragic events earlier in the summer in the Baldoyle area.

There is a deep affection for Dublin Corporation and Dublin City Council in the Howth area and I ask the Minister, even at this late stage, to look again at sections 8 and 10 to see if the Howth ward could be included as part of Dublin Corporation. I should say that this would be of no political advantage to me as, unfortunately, there is no Labour Party representative in that ward. Nevertheless, I would be happy to welcome the four councillors for the area from the other parties into Dublin Corporation.

Section 35 and the Third Schedule deal with the transfer of responsibility for certain dwellings and land. This proposal has significant implications for the finances of Dublin Corporation and future development. At present Dublin Corporation has control, so to speak of 8,000 houses out of a total of approximately 17,000 houses. This means that a large chunk of the houses available for inclusion in our list of tenants is located in the county. I understand why Deputy Lawlor and other members of Dublin County Council regard it as right and democratic that the people living in these houses should be represented by local representatives. However, local representatives on Dublin Corporation will be left in dire straits if they do not have some access to the transfer and housing allocation lists for the three new councils, particularly the list for the South Dublin area where there are many large housing estates to which many of the people on our housing list will be transferred.

The proposals in regard to land will probably have the most detrimental effects on Dublin Corporation. Deputy Currie referred to this issue earlier. During the past 50 years Dublin Corporation has built up land banks of a few hundred acres in the county area. This issue has been discussed previously in the House and everybody accepts that we do not want huge soulless estates without any community facilities to be built again. Nevertheless, under Part II of the Third Schedule all that land will be transferred to the new councils. The Minister has set out very explicit instructions for the transfer of that land — for example, the way in which it is to be transferred. However, the point needs to be made that Dublin Corporation after this transfer will have very little land left on which to construct houses.

I am delighted that the Government has restarted the housing programme and I congratulate the Minister of State, Deputy Stagg, and the Minister, Deputy Smith, for their efforts in this regard. The list available to us at present tells us that there are approximately 1,151 sites — about two-thirds of these have been built on — available for housing construction. Dublin Corporation has been asked to build 500 new houses each year. If our land in the county area is transferred to the new councils we will have run out of space on which to build houses within six months. I ask the Minister to look again at section 35 and the Third Schedule between now and Committee Stage.

A previous speaker referred to terraced houses. I think most people would agree that over the past two-three years an attempt has been made by Dublin Corporation under the Civic Charter to revitalise the city. This has been successfully done in parts of the city where tax incentives are given to buy houses. If some of the land available at present to Dublin Corporation is transferred to the new councils we will have no option but to build flat complexes. Otherwise, we will not be able to provide any housing for the homeless. As I said, Dublin Corporation raises 90 per cent of the funding and if we are to keep down commercial rates some of the policies in regard to land will have to be looked at again.

Irish local government is still too centralised. We have not dealt with the problems of funding and responsibility. I still remain to be convinced of the need for four counties in an area where there is one society. I ask the Minister to look again at the Howth ward. There should be some common authority for housing and the transfer of land should take place over a long period.

Miss Flaherty

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. I share some of the concerns outlined by the previous speaker and other Deputies who have contributed to the debate. I welcome this Bill in so far as it goes some way towards solving the problems in Dublin County Council, an unwieldly and unworkable entity where vital planning decisions are often made by people who live many miles away from the area concerned, who have no intimate knowledge of the area and who are not directly accountable.

One of the reasons it is possible for controversial planning decisions to be made by Dublin County Council — I want to be careful about the terms I use as I do not want to join the band wagon which attacks people for making certain decisions and ascribes certain motives to them — is that many of the decision-makers have no knowledge of the areas to which the decision relates. It is clear that Dublin County Council is too big.

The previous speaker felt that Dublin should not be divided. However, I do not think there could be any real local democracy in Dublin if it was taken as a unit. Our spokesperson, Deputy Doyle, made the point very strongly that we do not know whether this Bill deals with the bottom or central tier of the long term proposals for the Dublin area — we do not have any idea of what the top tier, the regional structure, will be like. A letter from the Department gives a broad outline of the Minister's intentions to set up a regional structure for Dublin whose members will be appointed from the existing local authorities and who will have broad directive functions. This letter leaves many questions unanswered. The Minister promised that we would have detailed proposals in this area five-eight weeks ago. These proposals should have been outlined in advance of the debate of this Bill.

The success of the proposed changes is very much dependent on a proper regional structure. Many of the problems which arise from this change could be ameliorated if an adequate regional structure was in place. This is typical of the way we go about business in this House.

Like many other speakers, I regard this Bill as an incremental approach to reform of local government in the Dublin area. These reforms do not take into account local areas, local communities and old traditional towns, where people have an identity with their areas. In my constituency, which accounts for perhaps one-eighth of the entire Dublin city area, there are three or four clearly identifiable local communities. It is vitally important that we know how they will interrelate. As I said, we do not know the full picture, yet it is proposed to make changes which will have radical consequences. As previous speakers have said, this issue could be solved if there was sufficient clarity about the regional structure, its powers to intervene, etc.

Another point raised by Deputies Mitchell and Broughan was that very few capital cities in Europe, are administered in the same way as Dublin. Most of them have directly elected or directly appointed mayors who hold office for long terms and are accountable to the public or to the Government, depending on their structures. The local authority mechanism, that very difficult relationship between manager and councillor, may be a receipe for lack of progress in the context of the huge demands involved in running a capital city the size of Dublin. The systems in Amsterdam or Paris are entirely different, there is either directly elected accountability or accountability to the Government in the form of the appointment of a person who comprises executive as well as political power. To take such a direction would represent real reform in Dublin because we are simply tinkering with the existing system without implementing any fundamental changes apart from geographical.

While this Bill breaks down what had become an unrepresentative structure into smaller units it does not respond to demands for more fundamental reform or to any level of localisation of democracy. Many councillors suggested they would have preferred the option of having a larger number of smaller authorities based on tradition.

I wish to refer to the "Dublin" issue. In talking to some of my colleagues from different parts of the city and from the independent "kingdom" of Dún Laoghaire, who see themselves as becoming a part of Dublin now, it is obvious they have a particular view about their identity but, traditionally, Dublin City and county have an integrated identity. Without an indication from the Minister as to how strong the regional structures will be and how this cultural identity will be maintained, we are working within limits. Like other councillors, I believe in the maintenance of that identity and the need for Dublin to work together for its future development, particularly in the context of the undoubted decline in employment, the decline in its quality of life in recent years and its failure to attract sufficient Government and EC investment on a scale comparable with other parts of the country. This is due mainly to a dissipation of efforts and, in the context of implementing reform such as this, it is important for that identity to be maintained.

I wonder why "Dublin" is not retained in the titles for the new county councils. That may appear to be a very simple point but it is significant and symbolic and would retain the integrated identity which nobody wishes to lose.

This legislation arises as a consequence of vital decisions in the 1950s and 1960s in relation to the future development of Dublin. Up to 1953 the traditional response to the growth of the city was to expand the city boundary, which was done on a regular basis. However, since then we had the famous planning analysis of the city which identified the need to establish the three satellite towns of Tallaght, Clondalkin and Blanchardstown. It was decided the city should no longer wantonly be allowed to expand while the county diminished but that the county should be developed based on these three new townships. That was a fundamental decision for Dublin which was not without its measure of controversy and ultimately led to where we are today, dividing Dublin County Council into three regional counties, thereby leaving Dublin largely intact at its current size.

I share the view of other Deputies in regard to Howth. We are very fond of Howth, it was always part of the city and I believe its people regret no longer belonging to the city. It is a traditional port and entertainment centre of the north city and the logical extension of the bay from Dún Laoghaire. We miss it and I gather it misses us, according to its local representatives. This issue was raised by a number of Deputies and I would be interested in hearing the Minister's response.

One of the issues about which councillors are most concerned in this city is the proposals in the latter part of the Bill and developed in detail in the Schedules involving the transfer of lands and property. In principle, I agree that planning decisions and the maintenance of local authority property in a general sense — particularly housing — is best carried out by the relevant local authority. However, traditionally cities have been unable to provide inner cities for their own housing needs within their catchment areas and traditionally city centres have had to provide housing for their people. This occurs in the private sector and it is something we do not try to control. The proposed constraints on Dublin Corporation, as a result of the blanket implementation of this policy of transfer of lands, would mean that the housing needs of Dublin — there are approximately 5,000 people on the housing list — would have to be met from the city's resources.

If this proposal were to be implemented all the land bank Dublin Corporation acquired for housing would have to be handed over to the county council with the question of compensation being very vague indeed. This morning the Minister intervened during Deputy Doyle's contribution to make the point that compensation should not be presumed in any situation. If the Minister is prejudging provisions in the Bill, on the basis that he anticipates a negative response in the case of Dublin, there will be alarm in Dublin Corporation about the consequences of such an attitude on our financial stability and on our ability to provide housing for the many people in this city who require it immediately and who will need it in the future.

The consequences for us have been partly outlined already by many speakers in the course of the day. Deputies Gay Mitchell and Broughan, colleagues of mine on the City Council, referred to the fact that we have 8,000 dwellings in the county built and maintained for us. I receive weekly the list of housing vacancies from Dublin Corporation. I read them with the usual interest of a person who goes to a clinic in Ballymun and Finglas where there are many anxious people seeking housing. Every week, in the context of housing, Tallaght, Clondalkin and Blanchardstown provide for us, I would say, 75 per cent of the houses. In the city we have many flats but essentially it is houses that are provided in those areas. Therefore they comprise a very important part of our housing stock, of our ability to meet the needs of people in the city.

If that is to be taken away from us without compensation how are we to provide for those people? We do not know whether the regional authority will have an ability to pick up the deficit by way of providing a communal housing list. It is clear that there is no anticipation that it would have any administrative functions but that it would be largely advisory. Are we to depend on their goodwill to take on the tenants of Dublin Corporation and add them to their lists, which I am sure are already under pressure? What is to happen Dublin Corporation's housing list? Are the Minister and the Government saying that they want us to revert to building inner city flats on a large scale, given their history, the movement away from them and the traditional desire for people, particularly those with small children, to live in houses? I do not say that inner city flats will not have a role to play, but are we to be confined to that concept in the context of the kind of land available at this point in time? For example, we have only 1,151 sites with 500 of those already committed. In the absence of compensation for acquiring additional sites, which within the city context would be extremely expensive — particularly if we are to adhere to traditional housing — the issues here are not ones that can be ridden over rough shod. I was very concerned to hear the Minister's remark this morning, that the question of compensation is something nobody should presume. I took the trouble of getting copies of the Official Report to ascertain exactly what he said, because it was by way of an intervention.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I interrupt to inform the Deputy that she has three minutes remaining.

Miss Flaherty

The issue of housing is the most critical one in that context. If compensation is fair and reasonable, perhaps it is something we can resolve — not easily — but certainly we would have some capacity to resolve it. But without compensation effectively we would have no ability to respond to the housing needs of the city of Dublin. Indeed, we will have closed off the traditional avenues of housing for the people of the city of Dublin, whether in the private or public, because many private people find they cannot afford the cost of accommodation in the city and initially find their first home in the suburbs. My own parents did so when Finglas was a suburb and was in the county at the time, a little rural village. That has been the practice and pattern. People have been doing so privately in Tallaght, Clondalkin and Blanchardstown. But if we are to say to our local authority tenants that henceforth that avenue will be closed off to them, that is an issue that will need to be resolved. There are a number of ways of resolving it, but it will require some flexibility.

On top of the housing land there is also our development land, a valuable resource which has kept our local authority liquid on many occasions when they have been owed money by Government and by other sources. It is land used to develop facilities for residential areas, which provided the basis for the Tallaght Town Centre and was held to respond to our other function of providing for industrial development. While some of those properties are already the subject of negotiations, nevertheless under the provisions of this Bill a significant land bank for development will be ceded, to the new local authorities. The question of compensation for the corporation is very confused. The Minister may or may not approve — and, based on what he said here this morning, it seems more likely to be the "may not" rather than the "may".

There are very substantial issues arising for Dublin. I do not think anybody would like to be facing the problem they face in the south county area, in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, where there is a £22 million deficit. It would be unfortunate if we were to be penalised or not adequately compensated for one of the wise investments we made on behalf of the people of Dublin ten years that gained for the citizens of Dublin, for the Exchequer and the Department of the Environment a valuable asset which might otherwise simply have gone into the private sector.

So far as it goes in terms of reform, I welcome this Bill. It is incremental. It is tiny either in the context of genuine local structures one might have liked. But so far as the provisions of the Bill represents a step towards breaking up a structure that was large and unwieldy, I welcome it. But because the reforms needed to render administration in Dublin effective are so large, I predict we will be returning to the Bill over many decades.

Mr. Lawlor

The fact that this Bill is before the House today is evidence of a decisive attempt to tackle the restructuring of local government in the greater Dublin area. There is a lot of merit in what is intended, but a follow-up with, pragmatic financial underpinning and coordinated decision making is required.

I had the duty of chairing the Eastern Regional Development Organisation for seven or eight years. We examined a number of the issues covered by the provisions of this Bill. We endeavoured to examine the blueprint for the eastern region, to ascertain what should and should not be done. We sought to rise above the parochialism of petty government arguments in order to do the right thing, while ensuring there was community involvement in local government. That is the balance that needs to be struck and which we endeavoured to strike.

When I first stood for public office in the seventies I had only one cottage in north Clondalkin to canvass, whereas today 8,000 houses make up what is known as north Clondalkin. There has been much discussion, controversy and analysis of planning and planning disasters. Tragically, north Clondalkin is the only part of the country that so far has warranted the establishment of a task force to combat urban crime. That is the single greatest indictment of planning disasters that have taken place in this city and county.

Deputy Flaherty and her colleagues here from Dublin Corporation over the past ten to 15 years do not appear to know what was done in their names in County Dublin. They are pleading here for hope for their areas. I do not hear them plead for areas such as Neilstown, Rolestown or Quarryvale, estates built by Dublin Corporation. Those estates are there today and it is our responsibility to complete them. Deputy Rabbitte carries some of the burden in Tallaght. The satellite town of Blanchardstown is also in my constituency. This very day there are 6,000 Dublin Corporation sites — mainly waste land and badly managed — in Clondalkin and Lucan. There are 10,000 Dublin Corporation sites in Blanchardstown and approximately 2,500 in Tallaght. That was the concept of the butchery enshrined in the Myles Wright report, which recommended the building of four satellite towns on the west side of Dublin.

Dublin Corporation bought up all of the land between Clondalkin and Lucan, known today as north Clondalkin, and incorporated it in the 1972 so-called coherent development plan. As a result we had this planning disaster and we must now do whatever is necessary to rectify it.

I fully agree with others who have said that there are 5,000 young couples or families on Dublin Corporation housing list qualifying for accommodation. I agree also that between the canals, within the city boundary, there will not be much progress made in reducing that number. At managerial level Dublin Corporation have had their knuckles sharply rapped this year and it is peculiar that they are now able to produce 500 sites while in all 1,000 sites have been identified. I should point out that they were there in 1992, in 1991, in 1990 and indeed in 1989, but why were they not getting on with the work?

Miss Flaherty

There was no money for housing.

Mr. Lawlor

They were getting it then. But they came out, plundered the county, leaving a trail of disaster behind them. Certainly, they left no money for their residents out in the county.

Miss Flaherty

We got no money.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Lawlor, without interruption, please.

Mr. Lawlor

An incredible disaster was visited on the county.

Miss Flaherty

This is the first year we have been offered money.

Mr. Lawlor

It was an incredible disaster visited on the county. Also it pushed the private sector to the fringes on the south and the north side of the county and raised the price of houses for young couples to excessively high levels. The position has been reached whereby the whole mish mash that is the horseshoe of County Dublin around the city — Fingal, Dublin South and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown — will have their own powers. I hope that with the underpinning on the financial side we will be able to get some cohesion on what has to be done. The frustration in the county of trying to deal, at managerial level, with those in City Hall has been aggravating to say the least. I called on the city manager in 1979 and he had with him the housing co-ordinator and the planning manager. I told them then that the concept of Clondalkin-Lucan would not work and that we would have problems. They paid me the courtesy of listening, agreeing and nodding but did nothing about it.

I hope the Minister will keep a hands-on approach to this reform of local government and that the managerial recommendations contained in the Bill will be given full effect. There will have to be some interface on the housing situation in the greater Dublin area, for example, the provision of a comprehensive and computerised housing list with a view to bringing about some cohesion in the provision of accommodation for those waiting to be housed. I sympathise with the plight of Dublin Corporation but unfortunately the disentangling of the present system will require managerial action. I hope that the necessary arrangements, financial and otherwise can be made to allow for implementation of the Bill. All revenue in this area came from housing capital, it was not raised by the corporation. There was a transfer of £4 million in the late sixties from the Department of Finance to the then Department of Local Government and that resulted in the land bank that was to provide the Tallaght, north Clondalkin and Blanchardstown developments. It was an attempt to crack the housing crisis in Dublin.

Miss Flaherty

That is interesting.

Mr. Lawlor

However, that move did not represent a well-thought out philosophy and, unfortunately, left in its wake, many problems. In regard to the underpinning of finance for local authorities I wrote to the manager of Dublin County Council following a local election when we gave a commitment to the people of the county that we would not impose a water charge. An inflow of about £6 million in that financial year was projected. Though there was much hostility and resistence to paying the charge, about £4 million had been collected without any controversy. In today's figures that would be £10 million. With the permission of the House, I wish to share time with Deputy Eoin Ryan.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed. There are some 11 minutes remaining in that time slot.

Mr. Lawlor

That revenue would be in the coffers of Dublin County Council today if, as I asked to have done concerning the subsequent financial year, the manager put a schedule of community spending to the elected council so that we could explain to our local communities how these moneys would be expended. In that way people would see the advantages coming back to their communities, even if they were being burdened with this extra tax which was a backdoor method of trying to reintroduce rates. Unfortunately, management did not have the ingenuity to do that. Therefore, it did not come to pass and we never put it to the electorate. If we as local authority members were in a position to go back to our local communities and go through an expenditure programme where community leaders could see the advantages there might have been some merit in it. Unfortunately that did not happen. There has been much hostility both at Department of the Environment level and at local authority level throughout the country about the fact that city and county dwellers are not paying this service charge.

The Minister's predecessors in the Department of the Environment effected cutbacks in revenue to Dublin County Council during difficult times in order to bail out Donegal and other counties including Wexford that were in serious financial difficulties. The reality is that the workload — bin collection, public lighting, parks etc., has increased continually due to the build up of populations and costs have increased annually in the Dublin local authority area. Because transfer funds are not transferred from the Department of the Environment, Dublin is unable to provide that broad range of services. Much has been achieved in the county by way of community facilities. Rarely does one see it written down that we have about 8,000 acres of wonderful parkland including Malahide, Marley etc., with some of the finest amenity facilities in western Europe. In difficult times, management in Dublin County Council has done a fine job. Focusing on the three new local authorities will allow management be more responsive to the demands and needs of the area. The priority of the manager in Dublin south will be unemployment, tidying up the difficulties to which I referred earlier and ensuring that industrial investment comes to that part of the county, an area in which Deputy Rabbitte and I have a very great interest.

The IDA set up five or six excellent industries in the Blanchardstown area and a major corporation from the United States is looking at the county but the Fingal area was able to turn the cartwheels and obtain approval for industrial development for about 80 acres of Dublin Corporation lands zoned for residential purposes in case the project would go to Dublin south. I hope this type of internal industrial sabotage will not be the order of the day. We have been successful in attracting large industry to Blanchardstown — an area I represent — but we have not been similarly successful on the west side of Dublin. That is the task that lies ahead.

In the limited time available to me I will make one further comment. I sincerely hope the recommendations of the Culliton report, which were applicable to our part of the county, will be implemented and that there will be investment in the base infrastructure to ensure we become a very attractive location.

In conclusion, in a national population category Dublin is seen as too large and in the provision of full facilities it is probably too small. The proposed rapid rail systems to areas such as Tallaght, and the other major facilities for populations of 80,000, 90,000 and 100,000 presents an unbalanced economic picture and creates many difficulties. This is not an easy matter to address. The Bill goes some of the way but there is much more to be done. I sincerely hope the fragmentation of the county into the three new authorities will give a much greater focus.

Mr. E. Ryan

There is a touch of deja vu about the banter across the floor. I am sure Deputy Rabbitte will recall a meeting he co-chaired between city and county, some of the arguments from which are still being bandied about. I welcome this Bill. It is a small part of a programme to give back power to the local authorities. The general trend has been towards the transfer of power; the Local Government Act, 1991, which removed the ultra vires restrictions, was the beginning of that process. Reserve functions such as plans for the disposal of waste are being transferred to the new authorities. Other powers being transferred include, for example, school meals service, school traffic warden service and some aspects of water pollution prevention. This indicates the lack of real power in local authorities. The Department of the Environment and the three Ministers involved should aim during the next few years to give power back to local authorities.

In the main councillors know the problems and how to solve them, but if they are not given the power to deal with them, the problems will remain. It is soul destroying for members of the local authorities to wait for permission from the Department of the Environment to solve a problem and it adds to the lack of confidence in local government.

Over the years people were relocated from the inner city to the county. We sometimes forget — I have fought for inner city renewal since I was elected in 1985 — that at that time people were living in horrendous slums in the city. It was like something out of Dickens. Housing was a huge political issue and the politicians reacted by having housing estates built in new towns on the outskirts of the city. Mistakes were made and estates were built in places which had absolutely no facilities. The corporation is still making mistakes and it is wrong that members of the city council do not recognise that. The condition of some of the houses and flats has been brought to our attention at meetings and we should do something about it. We need to address the problem because our failure to do so is not making our job as county councillors any easier. I am glad the situation is changing slowly. Tallaght has come on well in the past few years, the Tallaght Shopping Centre has attracted people to the area. The provision of the regional technical college and the proposed hospital — I understand there are plans in the pipeline for hotels and so on — will make Tallaght a very successful town. It has taken Tallaght a long time to get to its present position because mistakes were made in the past and we should recognise that. Our aim should be to make the local government structures relevant and accessible to the general public.

This Bill provides for three new local authorities in addition to Dublin Corporation and they must work together rather than in competition. I would hate to see a mad scramble for businesses. Because of the lack of finance there would be huge pressure on councillors to make decisions purely on financial grounds rather than on good planning grounds. The Department of the Environment must watch this and it could be monitored by a regional authority comprised of members selected from the four councils.

I was chairman of the planning committee of Dublin Corporation when our development plan was drawn up and in some cases decisions were taken without the knowledge that a shopping centre of 100,000 sq. feet would be built in an area, making our proposal totally irrelevant. That made for bad planning decisions in the past. We have many problems in common and that is why it is important to take a regional view. In the city we had a problem with dereliction — I think we have solved it and we will not have the doughnut type city which everybody spoke about — but now there is a great interest in urban renewal and approximately 6,000 to 7,000 apartments have been built or are at the planning stage in the inner city. The leader of the Civil Alliance in Dublin City Council, Deputy Broughan, said it was responsible. While of course, Civil Alliance played a part, the Fianna Fáil led council from 1985 to 1991 had a huge impact. Every single party was involved and this had a dramatic effect.

An Leas-Chenn Comhairle

Will the Deputy draw his remarks to a close, please?

Miss Flaherty

Do not forget the tax incentives proposed by the former Minister, John Boland.

Mr. E. Ryan

Shopping centres on the outskirts of the city could have a detrimental effect on shopping in the inner city. It is not that we do not want people to be properly serviced but we have to take cognisance of the situation and recognise that problems may be caused for others.

The Dublin Transport Initiative is an example of a body that takes an overview of the region. It has made proposals that relate to both the city and county and this gives us a better overview in regard to sorting out the traffic problems. I believe the Minister should give teeth to a regional authority that can make real decisions and inform the relevant local authority of them. Unfortunately, time prevents me from making further points.

Mr. Rabbitte

I will try to make some of the points for Deputy Ryan. As Members said, I am chairman of Dublin County Council, the local authority being abolished. My colleagues expect me to speak on this Bill but, unfortunately, I am not as prepared as I would like to be. I hope, unlike the processing of the 1991 Bill, that we will get an opportunity to deal with this in some detail on Committee Stage.

I disagreed with very little of what Deputy Lawlor said. His analysis, with all due respect to colleagues who have served or are serving members of Dublin City Council, is nearer the historical truth and the explanation of things envolving in the way they have than the contributions of Deputies Flaherty and Ryan. I regret that I missed Deputy Broughan's contribution, he has a rose tinted view of the machinations of Dublin city hall and its impact on Dublin County. It is unfortunate if other members see this as a parochial squabble in Dublin. The Minister's figures this morning show that the population of Dublin county is 547,000 in addition to the 500,000 in Dublin city, a huge population. Our capital city is a major issue. We have a legacy of problems and there is no doubt, as Deputy Lawlor says, that the severity of the problems in some of the areas is due to planning decisions made since the 1960s.

I will refer to Deputy Eoin Ryan's aspiration that the new local authorities would co-operate rather than compete, his underlining of the planning arguments in terms of the future shape of the capital city and the reasons this should happen. Unfortunately, there are no mechanisms in the Bill that are likely to ensure the position will be any better in the future. Deputy Lawlor instanced the case of a major international company — and hopefully it will locate here — as an example of the infighting that can take place within the component parts of what is currently Dublin County Council, omitting entirely the complication of the City Council.

Miss Flaherty

I thank the Deputy for that description.

Mr. Rabbitte

The proposed regional authority will not be very meaningful. It is no more than a co-ordinating committee; it is essentially a managers' committee without any clout or teeth. It cannot give Deputy Ryan an assurance about the future co-ordination of the greater Dublin region.

Deputy Lawlor referred to his experience with ERDO. Notwithstanding the fact that the figures ERDO were working on turned out to be erroneous, I am not convinced that the greater Dublin area and the three counties which form the mid-east region form a meaningful regional unit. It is an inescapable fact at present that the dormitory towns of Leixlip, Bray and so on are part of that region or whatever title is ascribed to it. I have no hang-up about the word "Dublin" being used. Those towns are part of the region and it will be difficult to make plans in regard to that region without taking them into account. The provisions relating to a regional authority are totally inadequate if we are to proceed from an overall regional perspective.

Deputy Lawlor expressed the requirement that an overview on a regional basis be taken to transcend inevitable parochial disputes and at the same time devolve more power to the local community for matters relevant to them. The legislation is deficient in that regard and I am not sure if the Minister is willing to reconsider the matter on Committee Stage. Nevertheless, the matter requires further consideration.

In case Deputies think I was dismissive of the role of City Hall I will refer again to that matter. Deputy Ryan stated that some problems relating to County Dublin have not been dealt with but that we are beginning to tackle them and that matters are improving. That is not true. Matters are not improving; and if any structured steps are being implemented at present to tackle the residue of problems they result from the introduction of this legislation. There was never any voluntary commitment on the part of either the political or managerial bureaucracies at City Hall. For example, I recall visiting City Hall as part of a deputation and we were received as a deputation and not as members of an equal local authority——

Miss Flaherty

We have had a reciprocal experience. It is impossible to get a meeting with the county council. One must go to the bottom of its list.

Mr. Rabbitte

Deputy Flaherty, as a long serving city councillor, holds a similar attitude to that of my colleagues and I, which is that the City Council believe it is the premier local authority, that things should be done its way and that Tallaght, Swords and Dún Laoghaire are part of the suburbs. That is the mentality of the members of that council. There was no recognition of the status of the separate local authority or its problems. In its views we were the suburbs and it was the premier authority. That might be acceptable if those suburbs were represented on the City Council; but they were never represented on the council and no councillor from any party, including my own, raised the problems in north Clondalkin, to which Deputy Lawlor referred, or the problems in Tallaght and many other areas.

Miss Flaherty

The problems in Tallaght were raised regularly.

Mr. Rabbitte

Whatever criticisms one can make about the weakness of the system and public accountability it is the lack of ability to stand up in City Hall and raise the problem of rundown estates, the total absence of management of estates and why the housing maintenance programme has been allowed run down which has produced the cumulative effect we now have. I understand why officials tend to respond to areas of greatest need. I understand also that councillors such as Deputy Flaherty, who represent the Finglas and Ballymun areas, have sufficient problems in their own areas to raise. It is perfectly natural that City Council officials tend to be responsive to councillors in those areas. As a result we have had problems which have been created since the sixties in County Dublin. For example, the housing authority was the City Council and the administrative authority was the county council. This meant that the unfortunate residents of the county did not get the service or attention to which they were entitled. The result is that we have this extraordinary residue of problems — rundown, unkempt estates, with little maintenance; no management of estates, no tenant participation in the allocation of housing, and so on.

I will cite a practical example in that regard. Unlike Deputy Flaherty's constituency, my constituency contains only one flats complex. I recall going to City Hall as part of a deputation with the late Deputy Seán Walsh during St. Patrick's week in 1986 to highlight the uninhabitable state of the 12 blocks of flats in my area. It took five years to have two of those blocks repaired and that was achieved only because we finally persuaded officials in City Hall to sell them off to a housing co-operative called NABCO. The other ten blocks remain virtually unchanged since our visit to City Hall in 1986. There never was a willingness to co-operate in this area. I do not wish to be offensive to anybody, but in making representations to Dublin City Hall I may as well have been chairman of Cork County Council for all the response I got. The fact that 7,500 housing units in my area are the property of Dublin Corporation and inhabited by people selected by Dublin Corporation apparently accounts for nothing.

I welcome enthusiastically the sections of the Bill and the Schedule thereto that provides for the transfer of dwellings between principal authorities and the transfer of lands to new councils. Those provisions are long overdue. It makes no sense that it should be otherwise. If a local authority is the administrative authority for an area, it should also be the housing authority. Responsibility for housing matters should be vested in that local authority. As a result improvements will be effected, but at a cost. As Deputy Lawlor stated, a net cost will accrue to the local authority in which responsibility for those houses is vested. That matter must be addressed under this legislation.

Debated adjourned.