Two Private Notice Questions to the Minister for the Environment on the threatened abolition of Fingal and South Dublin County Councils have been allowed. It is understood that the Minister proposes to reply to these questions together. I now call on the Members concerned to put their questions to the Minister.
Private Notice Questions. - Threatened Abolition of Dublin Local Authorities.
asked the Minister for the Environment if he has received requests for meetings from representatives of South Dublin Council and Fingal Council to discuss difficulties regarding the adoption of estimates; if so, if he intends to accede to this request; if he will extend the deadline of midnight tonight, 8 February 1994, for consideration of the estimates in view of the implications for local democracy in Dublin of any abolition of the councils; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
asked the Minister for the Environment whether he intends to extend the time allotted for consideration by the South Dublin Council of its estimates for 1994 or whether he intends to abolish the council tonight, 8 February 1994; and his views on whether it is in the interests of promoting local democracy that the council be abolished within five weeks of being established.
I propose to take both questions together.
I am extremely concerned at the failure of South Dublin and Fingal County Councils to adopt their estimates of expenses and strike rates for 1994 after a series of six meetings by each of the councils. The adoption of annual estimates is one of the fundamental responsibilities of local authority elected members and where a local authority fails to adopt an estimate, within a reasonable period, steps must be taken quickly and effectively to avoid causing serious hardship to the general public and to employees of the local authorities concerned and to those in other employments, whose jobs are dependent on the continuance of essential local services.
It is my duty as Minister to supervise in a broad sense the manner in which local authorities carry out their responsibilities and I have to step in where there has been a serious failure on their part. The ultimate sanction provided by law would involve the removal of councillors from office and their replacement by a commissioner who would discharge the functions of the elected councillors.
My Department has received reports from both county managers outlining the factual circumstances of the failure of both councils to fulfil their statutory duty to adopt estimates. The managers' letters also convey requests by the chairmen of both councils for an extension of time to afford the councils a further opportunity to consider the matter and in the case of South Dublin I was also requested to receive a deputation but I declined this request.
Such is the extent of my concern and disappointment in this matter that I have indicated publicly I would have no alternative but to remove the councillors from office in the absence of a clear and unambiguous commitment from these councils today that they are willing to discharge their statutory obligations in a responsible manner by the adoption of estimates of expenses.
I have already indicated that I will make grant assistance available to the new councils to contribute to the once off start up costs. In addition, I arranged for the payment of rate support grant instalments for the first three months of the year to the new councils to assist cash flow requirements.
I do not propose to make special grant assistance available to the councils to eliminate existing deficits since these deficits are related to outstanding arrears owed to both councils from a variety of sources. Realisation of these arrears owed would eliminate these deficits.
It is a matter of considerable regret that this situation has arisen. The councils have abdicated their responsibilities but I have a responsibility to act in the public interest and I intend to do so.
Does the Minister accept that a number of other local authorities outside Dublin found themselves in a similar position in the past and, indeed, earlier this year and that in all cases he granted extensions of time to the local authorities concerned without imposing any preconditions? What is the reason he is taking a different approach towards the new local authorities in Dublin and imposing a precondition? Will he confirm to the House that he has conveyed to the councils that nothing less than the councils introducing service charges as part of the annual estimates will be acceptable to him?
I have no power to require the councils to introduce charges. The Deputy knows what the law is in that regard. It is entirely a matter for the councils to decide.
But the Minister told them to.
The Minister to continue without interruption, please.
It is their obligation to adopt a responsible estimate.
That is not what the Minister said in the letter.
I am not involved in that process; it is a matter that is decided at local level. It is only when a council fails to discharge this responsibility that I become involved. I was deeply concerned when councils decided to make unsustainable cuts in essential services, such as roads and libraries, to avoid taking responsible decisions.
Will the Minister answer the questions I put to him?
I will come back to the Deputy for one more round.
We might have a lot more than one.
I said one round, Deputy Shatter.
The Minister made reference to the abdication of responsibility but does he agree, in the context of South Dublin Council, that a classical piece of abdication of responsibility was the initial attitude of Fianna Fáil councillors who announced that they were opposed to cuts and service charges? Will the Minister indicate how that circle can be squared? Second, did he convey the views that he has now expressed, which clearly are the views of the Government, to the Labour and Fianna Fáil members on each of the relevant councils and tell them that it is now Government policy that such charges be imposed and that if they are not, the councils will be abolished?
In the political world it is most important that one keeps up-to-date with what is happening——
The Minister should answer the question.
——and if one is languishing in the opinion polls it becomes even more important.
That has nothing to do with it. Is this an attack on the Labour Party?
(Interruptions.)
I wish to announce that Fingal Council met this afternoon and voted 19: 5 in favour of the resolution.
The Minister should answer the question.
Order, please.
You can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time. The Minister's turn will come.
The Minister did well; it is a poll tax, not opinion polls.
Poleaxed.
Will the Minister answer the questions I put to him? Why is he taking a different approach to the local authorities in Dublin from that to any of the other local authorities which have found themselves in difficulty in adopting estimates? What is the reason he gave an instruction to the councils — it amounted to nothing less — to introduce charges? Is this not tantamount to the Minister taking on the responsibility for matters which properly should be decided by the elected members of the councils?
Democratic Left always begin to shine when the estimates are discussed——
We shine all the time.
——because that is the time when one has to say how one would raise the funds one wants to spend. In regard to any difference there might be between what I am doing in this circumstance and how I dealt with Cork and Waterford, the Deputy is entitled to know that Cork and Waterford corporations sought additional time to adopt their Estimate.
So did we.
Fingal and South Dublin sought additional time in order that the Minister for the Environment could provide additional funds so that they could avoid their responsibilities.
That is not true. It is misleading the House.
You are going to screw Dublin.
I am calling Deputy Alan Shatter. I will then call Deputy Martin Cullen for a final supplementary on this, having accommodated the two other parties in Opposition.
Would the Minister not agree that on this issue, as in other matters in relation to Dublin, the two partners in Government, Labour and Fianna Fáil, are engaging in a game of political gymnastics?
No, you are.
Would the Minister agree that having told people in the last election that no residential home tax extensions would be imposed on them and having decried local charges in the local government elections they are now proposing those charges? Will the Minister acknowledge that in Dublin that means triple taxation which is anti-Dublin and is grossly unjust? The Minister has not sufficient courage to come into this House and admit that is what the Government is at.
I did not have too much spare time last evening but I did read the report of the commission on Fine Gael about where they were going. There was a very strong paragraph indicating that they were going in a great many directions at the one time. That is what they are doing still.
The Minister should be reading about where Deputy Michael O'Kennedy is going. It is a pity he did not read election manifestos and admit that Labour and Fianna Fáil have misled the electors at successive elections. The Government has not the courage to say what it is at.
You changed Fine Gael's mind last evening. They had made an agreement.
(Interruptions.)
It is obvious that the Minister, in responding, is not on very stable ground. Does he not agree that service charges as a method of funding local Government are extremely controversial; that money is difficult to collect; that the imposition of a property tax has removed the ability of local authorities to collect money at local level and that the effect of this is to devastate local authorities throughout the country, not just the three authorities we are talking here about this afternoon? What proposals will the Minister bring before the House when the funding of local authorities is decimated because of the property tax on top of service charges?
More tax.
The Deputy has done so many somersaults over the past few weeks that one more will not make any difference.
I saved the authority in my county and no thanks to the Minister.
Do not get excited about it.
We will not be put down by the Minister's antics on that bench. Smart-ass comments by him are typical. I did not spend two months trying to work things out.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister to reply, please.
I have nothing further to add.