Vol. 773 No. 18
47. Deputy Barry Cowen asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government his views on providing individual local authorities powers to set property tax rates; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46303/12]
The development of a system of local government funding which is fair, stable, effective and brings greater local responsibility in financial matters is an essential feature of the reform programme for local government. Consistent with the overall local government reform process and as stated in chapter 10 of the action plan for effective local government entitled, Putting People First, the Government is committed to the introduction of a local property tax, with provision for an appropriate element of local authority financial responsibility to underpin local democratic decision-making. Beyond that principle, no decisions have been taken and it would not be appropriate to discuss such matters prior to the Government's consideration of the matter.
The Minister has initiated the discussion by virtue of what he had to say last week and what is within the local government action plan, Putting People First, relating to local property taxes. This is against the backdrop of the Thornhill report. The Minister commissioned the expertise of Mr. Thornhill to make recommendations to him.
The Minister has had the report since last May or June; he is heading into his fifth or sixth month with it. The Taoiseach tells us that the implementation of a property tax has not yet been discussed at Cabinet and that the only decisions made were that it would be implemented in the budget and collected by the Revenue Commissioners, and that it would come into effect next June or July. Will the Minister not share this report with someone, at the least those in the Cabinet? It cannot be that scary, although I realise the Minister has done some scary things in the past 12 months. Surely he could sit down and read the book to someone to give us an indication of where we are going with regard to property tax. The vagueness of it only adds to the aspirational feel of the whole document as produced last week. The Minister has opened the debate but has not produced the Thornhill report. I call on him to produce it immediately, considering he has had it for so long and is sharing it with no one. It is about time we all got a look at it, at least to establish what is being discussed or what might be discussed and ultimately what might be coming down the tracks. Let us compare it with what the Minister has referred to in the report.
Does the Minister now envisage local authorities augmenting the property tax the Government will bring in for their benefit in respect of services they might provide in future? If so, will that be collected by the Revenue Commissioners as well? Will the system of collection be enforced in the same manner in which the Revenue Commissioners enforce other types of collection?
Deputy Cowen is well aware that the issue of a property tax was negotiated by his party in November and December 2010 and that it was included as part of the memorandum of understanding. I say as much just in case Deputy Cowen has forgotten.
The Minister can remind me all he wishes.
The Thornhill report was to establish how we could implement the decision made by Deputy Cowen's party in government. This will be considered by the Government in the context of the budget. I have stated as much on several occasions. The details of the property tax and its implementation will be outlined in the Budget Statement.
Will the Minister answer a specific question? When did the Minister get the Thornhill report? Has he read it? When will he share it with anyone in his party or the Government? Will it take a meeting of half an hour before 5 December to decide on it? Is that why Thornhill put the report on the Minister's desk? Is it envisaged that there will be a wide-ranging debate involving more of the populace to arrive at a decision which might achieve the desired result of having the support of the majority of the people?
Deputy Cowen cannot have it every way. Fianna Fáil was jumping up and down when some of the budgetary details went out prematurely from my office in February 1995 and I resigned. A great deal of information has gone out since and nobody resigned. I will not fall into the situation of detailing what is contained in the budget to the Deputy or anyone else in this House in advance of the Minister for Finance making his Budget Statement. What will form part of that is the Thornhill report, which will go towards informing the Minister for Finance and the Government on the final decisions it has to make on implementation.
Can the Minister answer the question? Is what he proposes here augmenting the property tax?
48. Deputy Brian Stanley asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government in relation to the proposed local government reforms, the way in which the €420m savings will be made; and the time frame for these savings and the cost of the introduction of district councils and proposed mergers of the three local authorities. [46513/12]
The estimate of €420 million in savings on full implementation of the reform programme is comprised of a number of components including savings arising from structural reconfiguration, implementation of the recommendations of the local government efficiency review implementation group, local authority workforce planning and savings arising from agency rationalisation.
Direct savings identified in the local government efficiency review due to efficiency measures in local government are estimated at €345 million, comprising some €195 million achieved in the period 2010 to 2011 and estimated further savings of €150 million to be achieved in the period up to the end of 2013. These savings have been achieved to date primarily from areas such as staffing and procurement and I expect that further efficiency savings will continue to accrue in these areas and also into the future following the examination of a shared services approach across a number of programmes, particularly on treasury management, transactional human resource issues, shared payroll systems, and ICT back-office functions. This estimate does not include any reductions in expenditure due to reduced activity.
It is estimated that payroll savings of €20 million will be achieved in the period to the end of 2014. In this regard, a workforce planning process is in progress to determine optimum local authority organisational and staffing requirements. Significant rationalisation of State agencies in the local government sector is also under way which has achieved savings of €10 million to date.
Potential cost savings due to structural reform will arise from local authority mergers and the integration of county and sub-county operations and structures, resulting in elimination of duplication, economies of scale and removal of the need for separate back-office and support units. While more definitive assessment of costs and savings will become available as implementation proceeds, it is considered that total savings in the range €40 million to €45 million relative to 2010 expenditure are achievable through the various structural reforms.
The changes in local government structures will have some implications, both for local authority revenue and costs. On the revenue side, savings will be used to reduce commercial rates and harmonise the levels of other charges. Some one-off costs associated with the transition to the new arrangements, including IT costs to implement revised service arrangements and retirement gratuities, can be expected to arise, but should be quickly recovered through savings.
I am confident that significant net savings will result from the structural reforms and these will have enduring effect in the budgets of the local authorities.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
Moreover, it is important to note that the benefits of the proposed changes cannot be measured adequately in terms of financial savings alone. The measures contained in the action programme are designed to promote both increased operational efficiency and value for money through more integrated administrative and implementation arrangements, and also to enhance the capacity of local authorities to achieve their broader role of promoting the sustainable development of their areas, the welfare of local communities and the quality of life of individual citizens by virtue of the effectiveness with which they perform their range of regulatory, representational and service delivery functions.
This is the first time we have had an opportunity to comment on the announcement on local government reform. From my party's point of view, there is a need to reform local government. We may not agree totally on the nature of the reform but there was a need to deal with the multiplicity of outdated structures. What is important is the powers and functions that we give to what is there, how they operate and the level of accountability.
On the issue of the savings, there is some €830 million saved since 2008 in local authorities' spending. The staffing numbers are down 23% to approximately 28,000. That is the highest fall in any section of the public sector. My concern is the issue of front-line staff, that in taking out a quarter the Minister is cutting back well into the bone. At that stage, he is starting to hack away at front-line services.
I thank the Deputy.
I ask the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to give me a minute. I am not too sure the cost of amalgamations have been factored in. There is the cost of making 500 staff redundant because that will involve a pensions cost. There is also the cost of outsourcing services. Does the Minister anticipate services being outsourced? The Minister might address those three questions on the amalgamation cost, the cost of making 500 more redundant, and whether there will be outsources and whether there has been a calculation done on the outsourcing of services.
I thank the Deputy. I must call the Minister.
For the record, I welcome the shared HR and the shared payroll.
I thank the Deputy for his constructive remarks. He knows from the rationalisation of structures in Northern Ireland that it is not an easy business.
It is not easy. It is also very costly.
The Government in Northern Ireland is trying to do the same as we are trying to do here. It is trying to reduce the number of local authorities to 11.
I agree with the Deputy that we have taken a lot of staff out of the local government system in the last three to four years. Staff numbers are down by 8,500, the highest number in any segment of the public service. Obviously, numbers in this sector can only go so low, as otherwise it will not be able to deliver services to the citizen. I am very conscious of this. I am particularly concerned about outdoor staff because they are getting older and will need to be replaced. We have already hit the 2015 target in terms of the employment ceiling set and do not expect to make many further reductions in terms of staff costs. However, we must examine ways by which we can streamline the structures at higher levels in the local government system, namely, the administrative and director of services levels, in order that we can make savings there rather than in front-line services. The proposed amalgamations will save money. The amalgamations to date, in Limerick, Tipperary and Waterford, have shown that savings of between €5 million and €7 million, depending on the local authority involved, will be achieved, once structures are streamlined. It is a matter for each local authority to decide how it wants to deliver its services, either in-house or through outsourcing. Waste management services have already been outsourced in almost every local authority.
On the question of outsourcing, the Minister made reference to the age profile of outdoor staff in local authorities. What is the intention of the Department in this regard? The logic of what the Minister has said is that the recruitment embargo will have to be lifted. There are some local engineering areas in which there are only eight to ten workers. The local authorities will have to outsource work to the private sector or the embargo will have to be lifted. What is the intention in this regard, given that local authorities can only go so far in cutting back on staff?
The Minister referred to Northern Ireland in the context of amalgamations. The intention there is that there will be 11 local authorities or almost two councils per county. Amalgamations are ongoing-----
How many local authorities are there at present?
There are 27, which is far too many. However, there is a heavy cost associated with amalgamation, of which the Minister should be aware. I ask him to address the questions of staff numbers and outsourcing.
On staff levels, we are keeping everything under review. Given that we have hit the 2015 target in the local government sector, we will examine ways to supplement staff numbers in some areas, such as outdoor services, particularly in rural areas. We are examining ways by which we might be able to achieve this. I cannot make an announcement on it at this stage, but we are working on proposals to supplement existing local government staff in certain areas. However, it is a difficult time financially for local government and the country; therefore, anything we do to enhance staff numbers in local government will have to take this into account.
49. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government if, with regard to the enhanced function of regional assemblies, the greater number of shared services and centralised procurement which he proposes as part of wider local government reforms, he has taken into account the academic evidence from similar reforms in other countries which shows that hoped-for efficiency savings did not materialise at the scale envisaged, and that there is evidence that beyond populations of 15,000 - 20,000 there is a limited potential for economies of scale in most areas of expenditure; if so, the measures he proposes to ensure that this does not happen here; if he undertook any examination of the role that enhanced municipal councils might play in helping deliver efficiencies in tandem with regional authorities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46407/12]
As in most areas of academic work, views on the optimal size of local authorities vary and international comparisons can be complicated by difficulty in comparing like with like. In the light of the range of functions of local authorities, their responsibilities for the delivery of services and the improvements in representational effectiveness and accountability, I am satisfied that the Government has struck an appropriate balance to optimise efficiency. Moreover, factors other than population and scale are relevant, including the strength of attachment to the county in Ireland.
The Government has affirmed the city and county as the core element of local government in Ireland, but various roles and functions will be performed at different levels of local government. As the report of the local government efficiency review group indicated, many services require a scale beyond the county to maximise efficiency, which is why a shared services approach is being prioritised in administrative areas such as treasury management, payroll, transactional human resources, back and front office information and communication technology services and accounts payable. A shared approach to procurement is also being taken. Lead authority models, where one local authority provides a service on behalf of others, are also being followed.
Within counties, the arrangements for sub-county governance set out in the recently announced action plan for local government entitled, Putting People First, are designed to maximise efficiency through countywide administrative integration. Representational effectiveness is being significantly enhanced by devolving a range of decisions to elected members at district level.
Local authorities will have the flexibility to organise service delivery so as to maximise the effectiveness of customer service. The number and size of districts will be determined on the basis of an independent local electoral area review. It is possible that many districts will be within or close to the population range referred to in the question.
Regarding the regional and national levels, an oversight role in shared services and procurement is envisaged for revised regional bodies. The proposed national oversight and audit commission and the regional assemblies’ contribution to efficiency will be through their oversight role rather than direct delivery of services.
I referred in my question to the work done by Mark Callanan, Ronan Murphy and Aodh Quinlivan, who are well known experts in the area of local government. The international evidence they have gathered suggests there is limited potential for economies of scale beyond populations of 15,000 to 20,000. These are not people I would dismiss out of hand. I accept that it might be advantageous to manage expenditure in areas such as information technology and human resources. It is disappointing that the regional authorities will be selected from the counties rather than directly elected. If they are not elected they will be irrelevant. This is a missed opportunity.
I agree that we have to operate as efficiently and cheaply as possible but a major reform of this nature must take the long view. Saving money cannot be the sole focus. That has been the predominant theme thus far, however. One of the areas in which it is claimed that money will be saved is through the abolition of town councils. I have previously argued that some of the smaller local authorities should have been abolished years ago but larger town councils have played a positive role in local government. Their role appears to be misunderstood. Having served on a town council for many years, I think that is a pity. I question whether the savings claimed in the document will in fact be delivered. I have previously argued that the number of regional authorities should be reduced to three but I would like have functions beyond an oversight role because there is much to be achieved.
The functions are being devolved to municipal district level in order that they will be as close as possible to the citizens. The regional assemblies will exist for the purpose of monitoring expenditure under EU operational programmes, overseeing regional planning guidelines and driving the efficiencies we require in local government and best practice in the regions. The local government audit service may have come up with useful suggestions about how to improve the effective delivery and quality of services but many of them are historical in nature. We are not getting real time information on how we might implement these proposals. I hope the regional assemblies will help us drive that through the oversight commission.
We can speak about structures but if regional authorities are directly elected they will be at the expense of something else in terms of power and functional responsibility. I subscribe to the view that power and responsibility should be as close as possible to the people. That will be done through the municipal districts and county and city authorities. This is why I did not opt for directly elected regional authorities. There is a need for co-ordination, and provision for this will be included in regional authorities' remit. I do not regard these proposals as abolishing anything. They will upgrade the powers and responsibilities of the local authority structures which are as close as possible to the people. I assure Deputy Catherine Murphy that when the legislation is introduced in 2013 it will contain a vast array of new responsibilities for councillors at local level.
I agree that decisions should be taken as close to the people as possible.
There are also opportunities at regional level to devolve functions from national level downwards, for example, in transportation and the building of schools. Many functions could be devolved from the various Ministries to regional level, an approach which would bring them closer to the people. What we would be looking at in this regard would be economic regions. In areas in Europe where such regions were developed, significant advantage has accrued.
With regard to town councillors who were formerly town commissioners, most of the funding for them came from an extra town charge. In the area with which I am most familiar, Leixlip, most of the funding would have come from a major multinational. These moneys were very well used in Leixlip, but they would not necessarily go to the county council. Nothing will be saved by the abolition of that town council and I am sure this will be replicated around the country.
The Deputy will agree that we have a centralised system and that what I am trying to do is to move some functions from central government and national agencies to local authority level and as close as possible to the people. She will see examples of this in the document. I look forward to working with Deputies on all sides of the House in deciding from the legislation as published on the appropriate functions in order that we can drive through this agenda of reform. We want to have people at local level to participate in and have the power to make these decisions. Funding will always be the most difficult part of this. Where people will raise and spend money at local level, depending on their priorities, it will be difficult. We cannot and do not expect to have meaningful reform of local government until such time as we are able to give people not just the powers but also the responsibility to pay for services as far as possible at local level.
50. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government his plans for the future of RAPID and CLAR schemes; if he intends to make dormant account funds available to them; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46304/12]
The RAPID - revitalising areas by planning, investment and development - programme targets 51 of the most disadvantaged areas in the country. The programme is committed to directing State assistance towards improving quality of life and access to opportunities for communities in disadvantaged areas.
The RAPID programme is one of a number of interventions that address social exclusion and disadvantage. RAPID area implementation teams, AITs, are important implementation bodies within the county development board, CDB, process. As part of the reform of local government, CDBs are to be phased out and, in effect, replaced by socioeconomic committees. This will have implications for the RAPID programme which will be addressed in due course.
In May 2009 the following towns were included in the RAPID programme: Ballina, Dungarvan, Waterford, Enniscorthy, Mullingar and Rathkeale, but no money was provided for them. I have been able to provide €440,000 in 2012 for the five new RAPID programme towns to fund a number of projects designed to improve the infrastructure of these communities. These projects are in the process of drawing down this funding. Further moneys from the dormant accounts fund would be subject to budgetary provision in 2013 and subsequent years.
With unavoidably reduced funding available to my Department, the CLÁR programme which was targeted at tackling infrastructural and services deficits in depopulated rural areas was wound down, from an outturn of the order of €24 million in 2008 to an allocation of €500,000 in 2012. This provision in 2012 is to be used to meet existing commitments arising during the year. No funding applications have been accepted since August 2008 under the main CLÁR programme measures and, in view of the difficulties with the public finances, it is not proposed to open the programme to new applications. The capital expenditure review, prepared by the Department of Finance in July 2010, indicated that relevant investment needs should be funded in the future by the relevant Departments with primary sectoral responsibility in the areas concerned.
Does the Minister accept that the CLÁR programme deals with the cost-benefit issue that often arises in rural areas? Does he also accept that his Department which has responsibility for water and sewerage services could reintroduce elements of the programme to ensure, for example, that areas without group water schemes would have them and that villages without sewerage schemes would have them?
With regard to the RAPID programme, is the Minister willing to make €100,000 a year available to each of the 51 RAPID AITs, as was done previously from the dormant accounts fund, particularly in view of the fact that there is almost €100 million of non-committed moneys in the fund?
This money could be put to good use in the 51 most deprived communities in the country.
As the Deputy knows, I would love to be able to give a commitment to allocate more moneys in 2013 from the sources he identified. In the case of the dormant accounts, we are precluded from doing so by the troika. The Department of Finance will verify that under the general Government borrowing requirement, the dormant accounts moneys referred to by the Deputy are included under the general Government borrowing ceiling. It is hard to explain to people that this money is available and can be drawn down at any time but is counted as borrowings because it is seen as money owed by the State to individuals who may have a dormant account in the future. Notwithstanding this, we were able to achieve some savings this year to provide €88,000 for five towns. I know the Deputy would have loved to have done this in 2010.
I did much more than that.
The Deputy was not able to do it because he had no money.
When I was in the Department, I was giving money every year.
The Deputy served as Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government for a short period before I entered office in 2011. Even though he announced the allocation of this money in 2010, he was not able to provide it in 2011.
The Minister will recall that the then Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs was responsible for dormant accounts.
It is not a problem for me to announce that various towns will be part of programmes such as RAPID and CLÁR, but the money has to be provided. The Deputy made an announcement on five towns, but he was not able to provide the money. I was glad to be able to find some for that purpose.
Will the Minister agree that a simple change in the law would result in significant moneys being made available from the dormant accounts? He is saying the legal situation is that there is a contingent liability on all 472 of the dormant accounts dating back to day one.
I did not say that.
A simple change in the law would free up this money for expenditure. People with dormant or unclaimed accounts who find their money would receive it from the financial institutions in the first instance, from the reserve in the second instance and from any new dormant accounts fund in the third instance. Does the Minister agree that if he took a little action, he could free up this €100 million in order that neither the troika nor the Department of Finance would have a valid argument for not releasing it?
I would be glad to do so if it were possible.
It is possible.
I am not able to do it because it is not possible to do so.
It is possible.
It is not because we have to count the dormant accounts moneys as part of the general Government borrowing requirement of the State.
There is a contingent liability.
The Deputy knew the answers to these questions before he asked them. When he was there, he could not do it. He knows what the legal position is quite well.
I do.
Equally, he knows the constraints in the context of the memorandum of understanding signed with the troika in 2010. We cannot do everything we would like to do. I would love to have the luxury that the Deputy had when he was Minister.
This is one thing the Minister could do.
51. Deputy John Halligan asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government if he will bring forward a statement on the way in which he intends to proceed with the merging of Waterford City and county councils; specifically, the way in which a unified Waterford authority will be better positioned to address the many economic challenges facing Waterford; the legislative changes that will be required in the reorganisation process; the key issues and challenges that have been identified in the actual merger process; if any particular early priorities in service delivery are likely to be achieved ahead of the merger; location of the headquarters of the new authority is likely to be located; if he will provide details of the Waterford Implementation Group’s terms of reference; the reason the boundary area between Waterford and Kilkenny was not addressed in the reform programme; the amount being saved by Waterford City and county councils through local government efficiency savings since 2010; if those savings already accrued are included in the estimated €5 million savings to be brought about by the proposed reforms in Waterford; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46507/12]
The report of the Waterford local government committee on local government arrangements in Waterford was submitted to me on 29 March. Following Government approval, it has been published on my Department’s website. The report recommended that the county council of Waterford and the city council of Waterford be unified to replace the existing councils with effect from the 2014 local elections. The committee indicated that it had reached its conclusion having carefully weighed the evidence and considered the concerns about amalgamation raised during the consultation process. The context for the committee’s deliberations, the approach and rationale adopted in its analysis and the advantages associated with the merger are fully set out in the report.
Regarding the boundary areas between counties adjoining Waterford, the implementation group's report recommends the need for more effective arrangements for co-ordinated development planning between nearby counties and the need to develop a multi-authority retail strategy. Implementation arrangements, similar to those followed in Limerick and Tipperary to date, are being put in place in Waterford. I have appointed an implementation group which will be chaired by Mr. Seán Aylward who chaired the Waterford local government committee to identify further details of the requirements for the merger and oversee the establishment of the arrangements necessary for the reorganisation and transition to a single authority in mid-2014. The group will produce an implementation plan by the end of June 2013 to provide a blueprint to guide and direct the restructuring process. I have published the terms of reference and membership of the group. I expect that planning for the new arrangements will begin immediately. As was the case in Limerick and Tipperary, it is proposed that a dual management structure will be put in place on an interim basis to manage and drive the restructuring process and the transition to full amalgamation.
Amendment of the Local Government Act 2001 will be necessary for appointment of a single manager to manage both authorities in advance of a merger. Further substantive legislation will also be required to implement, with effect from the next local elections, the merger of the two authorities and establishment of a new unitary authority.
In regard to local government efficiencies and savings that can be made, I am advised that approximately €2.4 million of the €195.5 million efficiency savings during 2010 and 2011 that have been identified by the independently chaired Local Government Efficiency Review Group has been attributed to Waterford City Council and just over €2 million has been attributed to Waterford County Council. This is not included in the estimated financial savings of at least €5 million identified by the Waterford Local Government Committee, which relate purely to savings that would be likely to arise from merger of the authorities and does not include savings that might otherwise arise, for example, through other efficiency measures.
There is a perception out there that this is not about better local government but about cuts and savings. I believe what we will have is a greater divide between the citizens and the Government for the many people looking for more transparency in government and from politicians.
No matter what way we dress up this report, it proposes a downgrading of Waterford city's status and it further weakens its standing alongside cities like Galway and Cork. Some 1,898 jobs were created by the IDA in Galway and jobs were created in Limerick and Cork but none were created in Waterford in 2011. How is a demoted Waterford city expected to compete? Will we be in a position where, for example, no dedicated staff will be looking after the city despite the fact we are supposed to be competing with Cork, Galway and Dublin for inward investment? There is no consistency. Why were we not treated the same as Cork and Galway?
Waterford city is the natural centre for the headquarters to be located, being both central and highly populated, but it is also the gateway and commercial hub of the south east under the existing spatial strategy of this and the previous Government. Waterford has comparable key strengths, including its highly developed industrial infrastructure and quality of life at low cost, and the city is an intersection point for Irish biochemistry, sciences and ICT international services. In addition, the new M9 motorway has made possible a journey time between Waterford and all other areas of 90 minutes. The question everyone in Waterford is asking, including the mayor, who is a member of the Minister's party, is why we were not treated the same as Cork and Galway, given Galway is of comparable size?
I can understand that Deputy Halligan has got caught up in some misinformation that would arise-----
There is no misinformation.
I want to set a few matters straight with him.
Fine. I look forward to hearing it.
There will be no change in the status of Waterford city and Deputy Halligan will have his mayor. I know the Deputy is not a public representative who would be articulating what others are saying but there are local representatives who got off to a bad start in regard to clarifying those issues. I am glad to clarify them now for Deputy Halligan. As a distinguished former mayor of Waterford city, I know he will be anxious to keep the traditions, the history and the status of Waterford city, and that will happen.
It is not the intention of anybody to demote any place, particularly Waterford. This is done for the benefit of driving a gateway city much better than it is going today. There is a decline in every part of the country because of the economic downturn but we cannot ignore the fact we need a cohesive economic plan in order to drive Waterford city, to make it a meaningful gateway for the south east and to have it the capital of the region. That is what I intend to do, with the Deputy's help and that of the public representatives in Waterford and the region.
I have two questions. First, will the Minister clarify once and for all whether a city needs a city council under Irish law? If that is not the case, what the Minister is doing is wiping away 1,098 years of history in Waterford. Second, will provisions be made in law to ensure Waterford city's status within a merged authority? These are reasonable questions and the Minister might answer them.
First, Waterford city, in the context of the arrangements we have made for local government, will have its city status. Second, I want to see an enhancement of how we deliver public services in Waterford city and county. We are in the 21st century and we do not need as many structures as we used to have before. Whatever we can do in terms of the legislation, let us see how we can devolve as many functions as possible from national Government and national agencies, if we need them, to local authority level in places such as Waterford.
Then people will have much more opportunity to be able to decide their own destiny in Waterford in conjunction with greater co-ordination between the counties in the south east.
When I was a member of a local authority there was a great deal of co-ordination. We used to have a lot of meetings between Waterford and Kilkenny. A predecessor of the current Waterford city manager decided to stop such meetings. Perhaps we should resume the process in order to have a better relationship. Waterford could start to have a better relationship with Kilkenny; I would welcome that.
The time for Priority Questions has expired. We will take Question No. 52 in ordinary time.
