Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 27 Oct 1994

Vol. 446 No. 5

Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Rate Support Grant.

Máirín Quill

Question:

3 Miss Quill asked the Minister for the Environment the plans, if any, he has for reforming the system of rates support grants to local authorities, to bring about a more equitable distribution of Government funds; and, if so, when he proposes to give effect to them. [2401/94]

Jimmy Deenihan

Question:

19 Mr. Deenihan asked the Minister for the Environment if he intends to change the system for the allocation of the rate support grant in order to ensure a more equitable distribution of funds to local authorities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2329/94]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 and 19 together. I have explained to the House on a number of occasions that I do not consider that it would be practicable or appropriate to attempt a redistribution of the rate support grant on a basis such as that recommended by the Institute for Fiscal Studies some years ago.

The present system of rate support grant allocations has evolved over a period of some 16 years. Adjustments to the system made over the years have generally been financially neutral for the local authorities. Where increased overall allocations have been made available in the Estimates for a particular year, the additional funds have generally been allocated on a pro rata basis among the local authorities.

Proposals for a new distribution system must take realistic account of the present allocations so as to ensure that no area suffers unnecessarily through disruption of important services. Any new basis of allocation must also take account of the particular difficulties experienced by some local authorities. Where imbalances may exist under existing arrangements, they did not come about overnight and it would be imprudent to try to solve them otherwise than on a phased basis, possibly over a number of years.

I will be taking account of factors such as the foregoing in settling the allocations for 1995 which I hope to be able to notify to local authorities shortly.

It will not be a severe setback to members of local authorities to hear from the Minister that he is not prepared to examine the possibility of a fairer system for distributing the rate support grant. How can he justify a position whereby, for example, in Cork city the rate support grant per capita is £37.76 while in Dublin it is £49.41 and in Limerick it is £48.82? How can the Minister justify that? Moreover, how can he defend circumstances in which, in the case of Cork County, the rate per capita is £42.31 whereas in Tipperary South Riding it is £94.77 and in Tipperary North Riding £78.79? How will the Minister explain that to the voters of Cork North Central or those of Cork South Central as he picks his way across footpaths that have fallen into disrepair and city streets choked with litter under public obsolete lighting?

The Deputy is embarking on a speech. She must bring her remarks to a conclusion.

When the Minister goes to Cork how will he be able to justify the halving of the rate support grant to Cork Corporation which in 1985 stood at £8,295,000?

The Deputy appears to be imparting information rather than seeking it which is the function of the House at this time.

I hope the Government will endeavour to deal with these matters on the basis of national criteria. I would be somewhat worried were the Progressive Democrats concerned in solving this problem only within the context of by-elections.

That comes very oddly from the Minister, bearing in mind his behaviour over the past few weeks.

I predict the Deputy will learn to regret some of the criteria she has outlined as forming a basis on which the Progressive Democrats would decide on a redistribution of the rate support grant. On the figures she has quoted, selective though they be, she will have to check very quickly with her colleagues, Deputy Desmond O'Malley, because Limerick Corporation would lose substantially under her criteria. I suspect it would not be possible to have it passed by her Parliamentary Party on that basis.

We would expect the Minister to base his decision on fair play.

As far as Cork is concerned, last year Cork Corporation received the normal increase applicable to all of the other corporations and local authorities nationwide but, because I recognised its difficulties, without any representations from the Opposition in this House, I provided an additional £350,000 to enable it deal with some of its debt problems.

That is not the case.

I would remind Deputy Quill that, regrettably and unfortunately, this year Cork Corporation will pay out £2.5 million in public liability claims, the highest rate nationwide, it being the principal local authority which has needed to address its finances within the context of the imbalances in public liability in that city against all other places.

I regret the Minister has thought it fit to deliver a discourse and not respond to the specific questions I put to him.

I am trying to save Limerick city.

How can the Minister justify——

We cannot afford the luxury of repetition. Time is of the essence. Would the Deputy please accept the position of the Chair who seeks to be fair and impartial?

I think you will agree, a Cheann Comhairle, that I am entitled to get an answer to specific questions rather than a lecture.

If the Deputy is dissatisfied with a Minister's reply, there are other means available to her.

I endeavoured to answer as quickly as I could a very brief question.

Will the Minister act on the recommendation in the report from the Institute of Fiscal Studies, that Cork Corporation should receive an extra £1 million per annum?

I do not consider it appropriate to devise a new formula on the basis of that report because it would visit on local authorities, like Limerick Corporation, already in a desperate financial position, a massive reduction on the amount already allocated to them. There are other local authorities in a similar position. Just as I approached the Cork position last year — where I accept there are difficulties — I will endeavour to remedy their problems but I will not do it on the basis of Deputy Quill's suggestion which would visit a totally unnecessary imbalance on other local authorities within the context of their current difficulties.

The Minister will get a very warm welcome in Cork.

We expect to be well ahead of the Progressive Democrats on the first count.

The time allocated for priority questions has been exhausted. However, Question No. 5 can be dealt with in ordinary time.

Is it not strange, that Question No. 5, a priority question is taken, whereas No. 4 is not?

Clearly the Deputy is not au fait with recent decisions taken by this House. The Chair is merely implementing the procedures laid down by this House, nothing more. We exceeded by five minutes the time allocated to dealing with priority questions today.

Top
Share