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.