I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill. While the Bill purports to seek to reform local government, it will abolish the dual mandate and change the provision for directly elected mayors and chairpersons of town councils. I have been a member of a local authority for 18 years and in that time I have seen the erosion of the authority of elected representatives. We must move towards a reassertion of the authority of local authority members as the governors of their local areas. Many senior officials see councillors as incidental to, and at times a nuisance in, the exercise of their duties, because they may ask questions which must be responded to. The reserve functions are becoming fewer and fewer and we must have a root and branch examination of how local government has changed and how we can revert to having real power vested in the people through their local elected representatives.
Local government appears to have become an administrator of Government policy and the policy of other bodies such as the NRA, with the authority of councillors removed and ceded to those bodies. Often when queries are raised in this House regarding the responsibilities of bodies such as the NRA or EPA, Ministers claim they are not responsible for them. There has been an erosion of democracy. The functions of these organisations should continue but they should be accountable to the people and the State through their elected representatives.
I was concerned when the Minister decided last year to remove the decision on waste disposal from local authorities. The Protection of the Environment Bill removes the right of local authorities to set refuse charges. Only one local authority that I can recall – I think it was Dublin Corporation – was admonished by the Minister for not setting its rates. There may be difficulties but, surely, that debate should take place within the council as part of the democratic process at work and the council should decide what rates and refuse charges it should apply. I could see some case for it if a raft of councils were not making the final decision on rates. However, that is not the case, so I fail to understand why the Minister has removed that power. This year, Dublin City Council had much open and transparent discussion on rates. People knew where they stood, discussed the matter over a long period of time and finally made a decision, while my local authority watched from afar.
There is worry and concern about incinerators and, if they are to be introduced, the support of the people and their elected representatives is required. We need to be convinced that this is the right way to go, but I am not convinced and I am not being backward or parochial in that. A health board report published in February about incinerators and landfill sites referred to significant implications for people living in the vicinity of incinerators. It was also concerned with the production of food in the same areas. The finding that the State does not have the means of assessing the risk involved is damning for the Government which was irresponsibly prepared to proceed at full speed with the building of incinerators without such capacity being put in place. The obvious conclusion is that all planning on incinerators should stop until the Government has put in place the necessary risk assessment procedures.
The report frightened many who are concerned about incinerators. In my council area there is a 40 acre landfill site with which there have been serious problems during the years. Despite improvements, the problems remain as do concerns about health and food production in the area, and about smells from the site which have caused much difficulty for local people. The site is discussed regularly in my area and at council level.
Removing my involvement and that of my colleagues from that area in order that we are not in a position to exert our views as elected representatives is dangerous. Unelected individuals such as the county manager will make decisions based on a policy handed down from the top reflecting what the Department wants done, without it being necessary to consult the people through their representatives. That is wrong.
The refuse disposal plan for my area stated that if an incinerator was to be built, the county manager would discuss it and get the imprimatur of the council. It did not state a project would not go ahead but that the manager would return to the council to consider it. That protection was removed last year by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government and the county manager has clearly stated that he will not now return to the council to consider the construction of such an incinerator.
If we want real reform of local government, we must consider the areas councils service. There is no doubt that there is a crisis in housing for which in my county some 1,000 people await. Councils, in partnership with the Department of the Environment and Local Government, must look seriously at this issue. There have been helpful innovations such as the voluntary housing schemes which some in my constituency have successfully taken up. The shared ownership scheme should also be further encouraged as it has been quite successful for many.
Improvement works in lieu of social housing, a matter I have raised before, are a good way of bringing houses to a proper standard but it seems to be almost impossible to get it through the Department of the Environment and Local Government because conditions are too restrictive. The improvements scheme could be used in a much better way to repair houses instead of telling people that they will get a new house in ten years.
If real reform is wanted, we must be innovative with regard to shared ownership of housing and other schemes to encourage people. Shared ownership has the advantage of giving occupiers ownership of and responsibility for their houses. I am not saying council tenants do not take responsibility but that when one owns and has a stake in a house, one tends to view it differently. One would not look for the council to come to change the tap or put in a window and so on. Perhaps, 25% ownership would be possible in this regard, though I am just throwing out that figure off the top of my head. Nevertheless, we must be innovative.
There are constant difficulties with roads. I am extremely disappointed with regard to the development of the national primary and secondary routes in my constituency. The people of my area were disappointed again this year to learn that the Adare bypass would not be completed. There is no indication when the work will be done. Adare is the major bottleneck between Newcastle West and Kildare and the bypass would greatly improve the village and surrounding area, one of the main tourist attractions in the mid-west. Removing heavy traffic from the village would be of enormous benefit to its development and the enjoyment of the village by residents and tourists who visit in their hundreds of thousands.
I also draw attention to the N69 between Limerick and Glin, or certainly between Limerick and Foynes. While there is concern about the harbour at Foynes, it has enormous potential for development as has the 200 acre industrial site at Askeaton which has been available for industrial development for a number of years. The one snag is the road from Limerick to the access route for Foynes and Askeaton. This has been referred to during the years and Ministers have made commitments to taking action. The return on investment in this road would be enormous, both in terms of a return to the State and in the creation of jobs in the area. Those who visit agree that the area is close to a key international airport and has a fantastic facility in Foynes Harbour. However, getting to the area by road is the problem. The frustrations of drivers behind an articulated lorry for 15 miles on the road, or visitors coming to invest in the area are understandable.
Deputy Allen referred to a discussion document which the leader of Fine Gael, Deputy Kenny, recently brought forward. It creates many challenges for those of us interested in local government, of which I have been a member for 18 years. If the people did not want me to have a dual mandate, they could have made a decision on my position at the last elections in order that I would not be a local government member. However, the people of the Rathkeale electoral area gave me the highest vote of any Fine Gael candidate in Ireland. That is what they said about my position and the dual mandate. I have a duty to respond to this and continue serving them in that role, as they wish me to do.
There are people – I do not refer here to politicians – who will be happy that the dual mandate will be abolished. I refer, for example, to officials in the Department of the Environment and Local Government. Members of the Oireachtas, who are close to local government, can raise in this House issues of local concern that deserve national attention. If an issue of concern which has been raised in my council is subsequently raised in the House in the presence of the Minister responsible for it, it is natural that I will want to discuss it. Senior local authority officials have said that it is of benefit that Members who are also members of local authorities can raise matters of local concern at Oireachtas level. Fellow councillors have often criticised me and my Oireachtas colleagues and not raising such issues in a sufficiently forceful manner. They are probably right to do so and I respect them for it. I have often heard Fianna Fáil councillors say that we should raise such issues and I respect their right to do so. The opportunity to make such representations will, however, now be removed.
Certain officials will be happy when Members of the Oireachtas are removed from local authorities because it will mean that they will no longer receive queries from the Ministers' offices in relation to parliamentary questions. The Minister, Deputy Cullen, has failed to outline clearly the changed role of Members of the Oireachtas after this Bill has been passed. What forms of communication will be put in place? Regardless of the changes that are made, we will no longer be able to play a key role in council decisions. We will not be able to engage in the normal cut and thrust of political exchange in the council chamber.
Ireland is one of the few democracies in the developed world where local authority functions have been delegated to unelected officials by the national Parliament. More powers should be devolved to local government. If one looks at the state of the health services, one might reflect on the removal of responsibility for health matters from local authorities many years ago. While there was some initial success, I do not think the removal of local involvement in the delivery of health services in local areas was a good development. The delivery of health services should be more locally based. I appreciate that overall management of certain services is necessary, but the more delegation to local authorities, the better.
There is no reason, for example, that traffic policing should not be done by local authorities, as is the case in other countries. Similarly, I do not believe that the policing of the liquor licensing laws cannot be done at local government level. Local police forces could be run by local authorities and the Garda Síochána could be freed to deal with more serious crimes. We saw yesterday that serious crime is almost out of control, but that is a different debate. We should examine seriously the possibility of giving space to the Garda to deal with violent crimes such as murder and rape. Other necessary duties such as policing speeding offences could be performed by local police forces.
It is a shame that the Government has decided to abolish the direct election of mayors and local authority chairpersons, presumably against the wishes of Deputy Noel Dempsey. The provision could have served as a means of giving direct access to power to the people, by allowing them to decide who they wanted as mayor. The winner of a direct election could have played a marvellous role and could have enjoyed the authority of having been elected by the people to represent them. He or she would have had a mandate from the people to talk to the county manager, in line with the council.
