Local Government Reorganisation: Motion.

Mr. McGlinchey

I move:

That Seanad Éireann takes note of the discussion document on Local Government reorganisation.

I believe that the idea to abolish many local authorities was hatched in the Civil Service as far back as 1961. In that year I remember attending the annual conference of the Municipal Authorities of Ireland in Castlebar. It took place during the general election campaign in September, 1961. I recall the rumours that circulated throughout the conference, that many urban district councils and town commissioners were about to be axed. When the then Minister for Local Government arrived in Castlebar to address the conference I told him about the rumours. He referred to those rumours that night in the course of his speech. He categorically and emphatically denied that there was any plan to interfere with local authorities. Some years later, however, his successor appointed a committee to look into the whole local government structure. Some years after that, his successor — and the present Minister's predecessor — accepted those recommendations, which would have meant that urban councils and town commissioners under a population of 10,000 would in most cases have been abolished. The last Minister for Local Government, Deputy Molloy, intended carrying out those recommendations. I was bitterly and completely opposed to this plan. I felt that it would have retarded the growth of many towns.

Then we came to February, 1973, and the Government in their 14-point plan indirectly referred to it, and said that the National Coalition Government would hold it as a priority at all times that power be vested in the people and that local government be made truly democratic and relevant to their needs. After the formation of the Government in December, I attended the annual dinner of the municipal authorities in Powers Hotel in Kildare Street. I recall the enthusiastic reception the Minister got when he assured the delegates present that their councils and commissions were not being abolished. The Minister gave the impression to most people there that day that they would retain the same importance and the same influence that they held previously, and I recall he, too, emphasised the words "local democracy".

A short time later the Minister published the White Paper, Discussion Document on Local Government Reorganisation. I felt that it was a discussion document. I accept that the Minister, so far, is not committed to the proposals contained in this document, and I should like this morning to appeal to him not to implement many of the proposals contained in this document. I also accept that there is need for reorganisation in local government structure and that there are certain small councils and small town commissions that need reorganisation.

In this White Paper, or discussion document, the Minister asked that observations be furnished not later than 28th February, 1974. A year has since passed and nothing further has been heard on this document until this morning. Indeed, I know at least one very efficient town clerk who resigned to join the staff of the county council in the belief that the proposals contained in this document would be implemented and that his work as a town clerk would become less interesting.

In paragraph 3 the Minister tells us that he is opposed to the abolition of a large number of smaller local authorities, as proposed by the previous Government. I believe that, if the Minister is to implement the proposals contained in this document, it would have been much better and much more politically honest to do what Deputy Robert Molloy was about to do, that is, to abolish the urban councils altogether, because the Minister will be leaving the urban district with no power whatsoever.

In paragraph 5, dealing with planning and development — it is proposed that planning and development functions should be transferred from urban district councils to the county councils, because, it says the legal boundary of an urban district "has little relevance". Was this not the very point that persuaded the former Minister for Local Government to make his proposals? His proposals were rejected by this Government and instead they substituted a scheme which would denude the councils of any power.

Members of an urban council up to now had the right to approve of the town plan, but under the Minister's proposals county councillors living perhaps 60 miles away would take over this power and urban councillors would have no function in the matter. This certainly is not an example of local democracy. The decision document goes on:

The urban council should, as a reserve function of the elected council, have the right to be consulted in connection with the development plan and other appropriate decisions, and in case of conflict there will be a right of appeal.

These words, of course, are absolutely meaningless, because any organisation and any member of the public under existing legislation has the right to be consulted in connection with the development plan and has a right of appeal. Indeed there is a statutory obligation on the local authority to hold a public meeting to explain the plan to the public and there is a statutory obligation on the local authority to receive and adjudicate an appeal. Therefore, that paragraph, when it tries to create the impression that some power is being left to the local councils, is absolutely meaningless. What paragraph 5 will do, if it is implemented by the Minister, is to take from members of urban councils and town commissions their say in the drawing up of the town plan.

Emphasis is again placed in paragraph 6, dealing with sanitary services, on the hinterland outside the urban boundary — the point that concerned Deputy Molloy most of all. Here we find that it is proposed that responsibility for sanitary services should be transferred from urban district councils to county councils. One of the principal functions of an urban district council is to provide sanitary services for its community. If this discussion document is implemented that power and that responsibility are being taken from it. This is very serious not alone for the urban council but for the county council as well. Most county councils have a priority list for sanitary services, and any efforts for one area to get in front of another area on this priority list are resisted strongly by county councils in that area.

Very often the urban areas in the council are targets for criticism and jealousy by county councillors from rural areas. Here again we have the situation that that urban district would have to take its place on the county council priority list. Of course, urban councils at the moment have their own borrowing powers for sanitary services. I believe, from my own personal experience as a member of an urban council for 20 years and a member of a county council for 15 years, that the removal of this responsibility from an urban council such as my own in Letterkenny would have a very serious effect on the development of that town.

In paragraph 7 — roads and road traffic — we are told that in most areas main roads through an urban district are the responsibility of the county council, and that other roads within the urban district are the responsibility of the urban district council. The next sentence not alone surprised but shocked me. "This appears to strike a reasonable balance and no change is proposed." I believe that if the Minister had said in this paragraph he was prepared to hand the entire responsibility of all the roads in an urban district over to the county council, it would have been welcomed by the urban councils concerned, because urban councils have suffered down through the years from lack of finance to repair urban roads, while the county areas had the county road improvement fund to tar and maintain council roads. While I realise that this county road improvement fund has been drastically cut by the Minister in my own county, to the tune of £120,000, nevertheless there are still reasonable funds available to the county council to repair what they call county roads. The only grant available to an urban council to maintain the many urban roads in their area is the urban road improvement grant which amounts, as far as I recall, to something like £1,000 or £1,200 per year. In the year 1975 this figure is absolutely absurd. If it is the Minister's intention to leave this responsibility with the urban councils he should consider at least trebling the urban road improvement grant to give urban councils the necessary funds to repair their own roads. The last paragraph is an attempt to placate urban councils when it says:

In general, traffic and road safety functions within the district will be a matter for the urban district council as a reserved function of the elected council.

We all know that traffic and road safety functions, in the main, are the responsibility of the Garda Síochána, and to suggest to urban councillors that they have any final say in this matter is misleading.

In regard to paragraph 8 — housing —the cost of local authority housing schemes has in the past been a problem for many urban districts. Again we read:

Accordingly it is proposed that there should be a flexible power to transfer housing functions from specified urban district councils ... or all urban district councils, to the appropriate county councils.

Here again the Minister intends taking from the urban council the responsibility of building houses within the urban area. This is very serious, particularly for urban councils such as mine. The progress of the biggest town in the county is possibly looked upon rather jealously by some county councillors in the county. That town will now fall in along with the county council for housing development, and their method of raising money up to now will be denied to them. I feel that this is very serious from the urban council point of view and particularly for the county council in that obviously the Department will insist that a certain amount of its funds will be directed to urban areas in the future.

There is another attempt to placate urban councils. The sentence that amuses me is:

In general, the aim would be to transfer functions relating to the construction of houses ... and to leave vested in urban councils the functions which really matter to the citizens (e.g. assessment of needs, allocation of tenancies, collection of rents).

Since when was it the responsibility of members of the urban council to allocate tenancies of houses? Whoever prepared this document for the Minister must think that members of local authorities throughout the country are very innocent indeed.

Paragraph 10 states:

It is therefore proposed to give power to county councils to provide staffing services for the urban districts and also to empower the Minister to direct that such services be provided in specific cases.

In other words, if a local authority refuses to provide this extra staff the Minister will direct it. Again, this is another example of the National Coalition's views on local democracy.

Paragraph 11, dealing with finance, states:

It is a matter for consideration whether this system should be retained or whether the levying of rates in the urban area should be assigned to the county council, the rate in the urban area being made up of two elements.

I listened to the Minister for Local Government in December, 1973, assuring the executive of the Municipal Authorities of Ireland that he was not like the rest of men, he was not a big, bad wolf like his predecessor, Deputy Molloy, and that he was not going to abolish urban councils. But the same Minister publishes a White Paper that proposes to take from the urban councils their authority and responsibility for finalising a town plan, providing water and sewerage and housing, and for striking the rates. He is taking from them every little power and responsibility they had.

I remember reading this document at a meeting of Letterkenny Urban Council. I remember going down through the agenda of that meeting, which was quite lengthy and detailed, and pointing out to the members that if this White Paper were implemented there would be only one item on the agenda of that council that night — to renew the licence for the local cinema. If Deputy Tully implements this — I realise he may not and I hope he does not — in my opinion he would be guilty of political dishonesty. It would be evident to all, particularly to members of urban councils and town commissioners, that the approach of Deputy Molloy, when he was Minister, was an honest one. These proposals would have a very serious effect on many urban councils throughout the country.

There is one paragraph in this document with which I agree. It is paragraph 17, which states:

The pace of urban development makes it necessary to speed up the process of boundary adjustments. Legislation will be introduced providing for a simplified and comprehensive system of boundary adjustment applicable to all local authorities.

If this were done, it would go part of the way to solve local government reorganisation.

There are many urban areas whose boundaries need to be defined. My own urban area has a population of less than 5,000 and just outside there is a population of 1,000 to 1,500. There is an obvious need to have these boundaries redefined. The same applies in many urban areas. I hope the Minister's proposal in paragraph 17 will be implemented as quickly as possible. I also hope the Minister will reject the suggestions in this document concerning the responsibility for housing, water, sewerage, planning and the striking of the rate. If he insists on going ahead with these proposals, then he should do the honest thing and abolish the urban councils altogether, just as his predecessor intended doing.

Mr. Killilea

I second this motion. In my opinion this is a document of subtle thinking and total bluff. In the last line of the first paragraph, dealing with the Government's 14-point programme, it says that local government must be made "truly democratic and relevant to the needs of the people". Yet, after giving the political dig to the previous Minister for Local Government, which is what the first page is all about, the remaining pages of columns and paragraphs are just a complete denuding of town commissioners and urban councils of their power. Paragraph 6 states:

It is proposed that responsibility for sanitary services should be transferred from urban district councils to county councils.

It correctly states that county councils are better equipped than urban councils to construct houses. Naturally, this is so. There is a need to pursue the housing drive as effectively as possible and to do this it would be desirable to transfer to county councils.

It is proposed that supplementary grants and loans should be the function of county councils in respect of all urban areas.

Paragraph 9 states:

It is proposed to provide for the transfer of all remaining housing responsibilities to the county council.

Paragraph 10 deals with small urban areas, staffing and finance. It states:

It is therefore proposed to give power to county councils to provide staffing services for the urban districts councils...

For what services do they need those staff when the Government have completely taken away from them all they would be requested or, indeed, entitled to do?

Paragraph 11, dealing with finance, states:

It is a matter for consideration whether this system should be retained or whether the levying of rates in the urban area should be assigned to the county council...

With the exception of paragraph 17, dealing with boundary extensions, which is a very deep matter and deserves much consideration — yet it has been given the shortest paragraph of all — the only thing the Minister for Local Government is giving to urban and district councils in this document is the right to call the chairman a mayor. That is about the sum total of that document in relation to the 14-point programme of the National Coalition Government, which says that they will hold local democracy as a priority at all times, that power must be vested in the people and that local government must be made truly democratic and relevant to their needs.

The Minister for Local Government should stop this bluff. Let him say that his predecessor, Deputy Molloy, was correct or incorrect. He should not accuse Deputy Molloy of being incorrect and yet be still more incorrect himself and more subtle about the whole situation than his predecessor. The truth should come forth. Let us be clear and emphatic that what is proposed in this document is the denuding of town councils, urban councils and town commissioners of their power and responsibility.

The first point we should make clear is that the Minister is not giving the local councils the so-called democracy he talks about in this document. Many things could be done. Town councils are necessary and should be helped along. Smaller town councils should be given more responsibility. There are peculiar anomalies in local government. I should like to point out one in County Galway. There is a corporation in Galway city which strikes its own rate and runs its own city council. Yet last May, when the county council were having a revision of seats, Galway city — and I am sure all other cities — happened to have their bread buttered on both sides. Galway city has grown enormously. It now has its own city council. Yet seats were taken from the county council and put into the Galway city area. It is very unreasonable that where there is a dense population, where flat-dwellers live, where the corporation have their own council, that they should have another increase over the county council.

One would only have to go a mile and-a-half to one of the estates to get himself elected to the county council. But in a rural part of the county one would have to travel miles. Yet the rural area must supply the roads, must try to supply water and make various improvements. Yet it will not have the same power in the council as the larger cities. This is where the Minister for Local Government should start. Are we to make a decision for all the people equally or merely for the masses of people and denude and forget about the areas where people are fewer? The same services will have to be provided for them as for the larger communities. If the Minister is to be effective it is at this point that we must start talking about being truly democratic.

It is not good enough to suggest that calling a town commissioner in Tuam "The Mayor" is giving him power. It is an insult to the integrity of people who seek to be elected to local councils while, at the same time and in a back-handed way, as is happenning in County Galway, depriving people not alone of seats on the urban council but also on the county council. The Minister should be fair and have a look at this situation.

When Deputy Molloy, the previous Minister for Local Government, was talking in terms of local government and changing the basis of commissioners and urban councils, he was giving strength to county councils. He was emphatic about that point — that the county council would be a stronger unit and the county council electoral division would be an even stronger unit. More public expenditure was demanded in rural areas on roads and sanitary facilities than in congested cities or big towns. One must compliment Deputy Molloy on that point, even though one might not agree with what he proposed to do. He was emphatic that each county council would be a council of responsibility.

There is no mention in this document of the situation which exists in my county — and, I am sure, in other counties — where one section of the community is blessed in having a representative on the corporation and the county council while another section is not entitled to have a representative on the county council. This is causing a lot of trouble. As any councillor in the House knows, the amount of money we have available today in county councils is so trivial that it is insignificant. Yet vast areas of roads have to be made workable and fit for traffic. In County Galway, out of 31 councillors, seven come from Galway city.

I do not think this document is of any significance because it does not attack the problem. It is a political gimmick, nothing more and nothing less. It is a gimmick which may work for the moment but, in time, it will be seen for what it is worth. It is a humiliating disgrace to suggest to those in local authorities that, with the exception of giving them some kind of right to discuss their boundaries, all other responsibility is taken from them and given to the county councils ad lib, against the wishes or, in some instances, the desires of the county councils.

The biggest insult of all is, to my mind, to offer to the chairman of the Tuam Town Commissioners or the chairman of any other town commissioners a new name — the mayor. This is a disgrace. The Minister should withdraw this document and bring in a document which tackles the problems of local government. There are problems in local government. Let us attack them. Let us not come in here with a subtle document and ask the people to accept it. This document says, in regard to local democracy:

The National Coalition Government will hold it as a priority at all times that power must be vested in the people and that local government must be made truly democratic and relevant to their needs.

He should get another dictionary and try to translate the meaning of those words.

Mr. Markey

I would be the first to admit that, when one speaks of "democracy", one is inclined to go overboard a little in regard to the definition and interpretation of that word. When we speak about it in connection with local authority administration we must remember that we are particularly concerned with democracy being a viable proposition. One can have democracy on a street corner. One can have democracy where more than two people get together within four walls of a private room. When we talk about local authority administration we must always bear in mind that in the last resort it must be viable. It is only right that there should be a number of guidelines and criteria set down for local authority administation. I would see these under three headings. There must always be a degree, no matter how slight, of financial independence; there must be some element of accountability; and there must also be an element of local responsibility.

If we look at the Minister's proposals within the terms of these criteria we will find that he has tried to steer a middle course between what his predecessor proposed, namely, the abolition of certain local authorities altogether, and what could well be put down as an impossible degree of democracy at local authority level where there is an absence of viability.

The previous Minister suggested in his White Paper not only the downgrading but the abolition of town commissioners in toto, and also of certain urban district councils, and their replacement by such bodies as area committees and community councils. Examination of his White Paper showed that these substitute bodies were largely without any fund-raising powers and, indeed, were merely advisory, with very little statutory significance whatsoever.

Looking at the Minister for Local Government's discussion document, which he has laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas, one sees certain merits in his way of thinking in regard to where local authority should go in future. He has patently opposed the abolition of a large number of smaller local authorities. He is very clearly against the abolition in toto of town commissioners. He still sees them as representing a certain value within the local authority framework. He has placed a great emphasis on the key role played by elected members within local authorities. In this he differs very much from his predecessor's White Paper, where certain powers were to be given, through co-option, to members of community councils and various other local organisations to sit side by side with people who went through the democratic electoral procedures.

The Minister recognises that there are limitations in smaller urban district councils. None of us can deny that these limitations are there. Indeed, back in 1972 Deputy Molloy set out these limitations in great detail. He even gave examples of where they were not able to purchase a typewriter. He accepted that the Government of that time were satisfied that the functions of many urban authorities must be transferred to county councils if the development of the towns concerned was not to be impeded.

Deputy Tully has looked realistically at the function of small urban district councils in the present local authority framework. He recognises and puts forward the argument that, for them to be a viable proposition for the welfare of the people within their boundaries, they must pass over certain services to a higher authority, namely, the county council, but not in any way depriving themselves in other matters of their own sense of independence and local responsibility. To help these small urban district councils, he would supply assistance through the staff of county councils. He has intimated reforms in the law relating to the constitution and procedures of local authorities. He mentions that joint committees of local authorities could be set up to co-ordinate matters affecting both.

When one speaks of local authority, one is speaking about something with which one can never be satisfied. There is always a limited amount of money available for an inordinate demand for services from the electorate and from the citizens. In looking at the Minister's document and comparing it with his predecessor's White Paper, one must see that he has tried to retain at local authority level, no matter how small that local authority structure may be, be it town commissioners, or even a small urban district council, that they will have the accountability and the local responsibility I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. These are the most important factors in local authority work. There is no point in having bodies which are merely advisory, which can make recommendations but never have to carry any element of personal or local responsibility in regard to the meeting of those services and wants.

Even town commissioners, who are much criticised, have that element of financial independence, limited though the range of their functions may be. Urban district councils have also that degree of financial independence in that they are able to estimate what their needs will be and to provide through a rate in the £ how the moneys will be forthcoming to meet these needs. It would always be unrealistic for any Minister to say that any authority should pretend to be something other than what they are. If he is thinking of reducing some of the functions of small urban district councils, he should do so realistically, knowing that the electorate themselves who elect the councils know always that the powers of these authorities are limited.

I congratulate the Minister on scotching once and for all the rumours and speculations which existed in regard to the abolition of town commissioners and small urban councils. He has set his face against this, and he is to be congratulated on it. I look forward to a further discussion document in regard to the reforms which the Minister envisages within the local authority structure, because there is much need for reform within county councils and urban district councils as regards the constitution of these bodies and how they operate. I certainly welcome the suggestion that joint committees between local authorities should be established. This is something that has not been attempted, in my knowledge, to any extent. It can only bring benefit through people realising that outside their own particular confines of town boundary or urban boundary there is always a greater responsibility and a greater range of needs.

I congratulate the Minister on his discussion document. He has cleared the air on a number of points which were giving rise to concern and he has given us some food for thought as to where to go from here in regard to reform of the constitution and procedure of local authorities.

Mr. McGowan

I would have hoped that the Seanad might have discussed some business that would have been more urgent. I think this motion is probably being taken mainly to suit the Minister. I would not object to that but it is rather unfortunate that we did not arrange for the whole lot of us to go to Galway, and look after the business when we had dealt with the by-election. This is a matter that should have been timed when a full House would be possible, and I mean Members from both sides.

It is very important, but not more important than some items on the agenda. It has been sitting here for some time and it is rather strange to see it put on the agenda and accepted by the Leader of the House, out of the blue, so to speak. Nevertheless, I only hope that the Minister is now in a position to go ahead and give serious consideration to this document. I hope that he will accept it as a discussion document and that we are not discussing something about which the Minister and his officials have already taken a cut and dried decision. I also hope that it is not pure courtesy that has been extended here in allowing us to discuss it. It is to be expected that any contributions or recommendations we may make in regard to this so-called discussion document will be given consideration.

First, I wish to refer to item No. 5 of the Minister's document. I agree with it, which is to disagree with my colleague from Donegal, Senator McGlinchey. He would qualify his stand by reason of his being a member of an urban council. I am not; I am a member of a county council. I agree with item No. 5 because today planning and development are very important for an urban council. I strongly advocate that the views of an urban council be taken into consideration and that the council be given the widest opportunity to contribute and to make their wishes known.

Today we are getting away from urbanisation as far as planning is concerned. Not only are we getting away from it on an urban basis, but we are getting away from it on a county basis. An urban plan is relevant only within the urban area and a county plan on a county basis. Trends today are for regionalisation and planning on a regional basis. No effective results can be obtained if we plan small pockets in isolation. Nobody is more interested in regional planning than we in Donegal. Our part of the country is located against the unnatural boundary that prevented us from forming a proper regional plan. Because of our geographical situation, I agree with those who advocate planning on a regional basis. This is necessary, particularly in the short term, and I accept that there should be effective means available to ensure that local opinion is taken into account.

I also agree with the document in regard to sanitary services, water and sewerage generally. The suggestion in this respect can prevent a very big problem for a county council, where there is one urban council within its jurisdiction, as is the case in Donegal. I am sure the same would apply to other counties, where there are tendencies to have growth centres at a number of points within the county. Very often, if an industry goes to any one of these growth centres, the Departments are inclined to give a global allocation of money to counties. This money could disappear largely on the provision of services within an urban area or one of the growth centres.

For that reason money should not be allocated to an urban council or to a local growth centre. It should be allocated on a county basis. I would also advocate that where there are industries supported by the Government this support should include all of the services that it will take to establish that industry, without completely robbing the global allocation whether it is to a county or to an urban district.

In Donegal we have experienced that where an industry is established the obligation rests on the local authority to be helpful and to support that industry. The money allocated on a county basis is largely spent in the area where the industry is located. One then finds oneself in a vicious circle situation because, having provided those services in a certain area, any new industry would automatically be located where those services are available. Therefore it is important that money is allocated on a county basis so that members of the county council will be able to see what is happening to the overall allocation.

I disagree with the content of the discussion document in relation to roads and traffic routes. Roads are largely the responsibility of the county council and part of the money allocated for primary roads would be spent within the urban area. Unfortunately, too often a large amount of the money allocated can be spent within the urban areas. The cost of removing one house within a built-up area, the realignment of footpaths or changing water or sewerage lines can prove very expensive and would be totally out of line with the cost of providing roads in a rural area.

I hope that the reorganisation of local government will take into account the overall development and the needs of the county council. Of an allocation of £200,000 for three towns in County Donegal, 70 per cent will be spent within urban areas, not taking account of the large area of primary roads in rural areas. Within the town of Letterkenny the council will spend £30,000 on main road grants but for the seven-mile stretch of road between Letterkenny and Kilmacrennan they will spend only £15,000. This stretch of road has many dangerous bridges and bad turns; it also needs road realignment. I know the Letterkenny area well but the same would apply for every built-up area within the country.

The reason I disagree with this document is that the urban council can raise money. We can discuss these matters in detail but the Department would have to look into the overall position because they are not unrelated to each other. I would hope that the development of roads would be put under one authority and that the provision of services for urban areas would be with the county council. Even if we were to give the urban council part of the responsibility — it refers in this document to an acceptable balance — you cannot balance as far as the allocation of money is concerned. In County Donegal there are three urban councils comprising 27 members, and there are 28 members in the county council. Some of the 27 members are also county councillors. Their strongest pressure would be in the support of problems arising in the urban areas. Therefore the urban council strength would outvote the county council strength in any contest. I have seen this happen.

I hope the new local government organisation will take roads, housing and the services in general out of this area of conflict. The question of primary roads, as it now is, should be the responsibility of the county council. The question of minor roads within the urban area, town or village, should also be the county council's responsibility.

The present system is unsatisfactory from another point of view and that is that urban councils are at the moment building housing schemes but nobody has overall responsibility for the roads within those new areas. The roads fall into disrepair and the urban and county councils squabble over who should repair them. This is an opportune time for the settling of this matter. One Department should be responsible for the overall network of roads and should be run efficiently.

On the matter of finance in regard to paragraph 11 of this document, I hope that the system of collecting rates will be changed. The present system is unsatisfactory. I should like to see one rating system applying throughout the county. It is hard to accept that, for example, a man living in a rural part of the county is levied at £8 or £9 in the £ and then he learns that an urban district strikes a rate of £6 or £7 in the £. He is living in a rural area; he is not getting the services available within the urban area such as street lighting, footpaths, water, sewerage or electricity and still his rates are higher.

For that reason it is difficult for rural dwellers to accept having to pay higher rates. As against that argument somebody could say that in urban areas there are higher valuations. However I can categorically state that there is not a higher valuation in the urban areas in County Donegal. To give an example, if a man builds an ordinary bungalow within an urban area, his valuation is about £25 and this is the same as if he built it in a rural area.

That is the nearest guide that I can quote here. The argument that valuations are higher in urban areas is not a valid one. Ratepayers in rural areas are paying much higher rates but they are not getting the same services. While we still have a rating system— I do not agree with this system at all— I would advocate that it be levied fairly and squarely on a county basis and that the total rate be collected by the county council.

We had a farcical situation in our county where people living in an urban area could get a supplementary grant for building a house within an urban area while at the same time the rate demand collected by the urban council within the urban area did not include money to contribute towards that supplementary grant. I am glad to say that that situation has been corrected. I wonder in how many other counties a similar situation would exist. It highlights the anomaly that the two rating systems would bring about. I sincerely hope that the rates will be levied fairly and squarely on all those living in a particular county.

On the question of financing, since the first document was issued in February, 1971, and the present document was issued in March, 1974, circumstances have changed altogether. Now, in 1975, there is need to have a reassessment of what is happening in the various counties. When money is being allocated to a county, consideration should be taken of potential services needed for industrial development. There is no point in saying there is a global sum available to a particular county for housing and sanitary services if, at the same time, the Government are promoting industries for the area and where money will be subtracted from this global sum to provide services for these industries.

There is need for major development at some of our fishing ports which will include road works, sani- tary services and services ancillary to the fishing industry. There will be great need in my country for many years ahead for massive development of sanitary services for some of our ports. If these services are not provided our fishing industry will not develop as it should. Special allowances should be provided to local authorities for the provision of these vital services.

This document does not refer to the Department of the Gaeltacht. Our county is partly comprised of a Gaeltacht area and there is need for setting up a special local authority for such areas. There is a conflict of interest between Gaeltacht and non-Gaeltacht areas. There is a special system of financing Gaeltacht areas which crosses county boundaries. While this document could be discussed in detail, a further survey would need to be done before proposals are finally adopted.

The financial structure determines whether a local authority do a good job or a bad job. I ask the Minister for Local Government not to reduce the amount of money he will allocate to a local authority in any one year, because this would cause serious difficulties. Like everyone else, local authorities are suffering from the effects of inflation, and £1 does not do the same for a local authority this year as it did last year. Inflation and increased costs should be taken into consideration when money is being allocated. Thus local authorities will not be faced with the problem we have in Donegal where the same amount of money has been allocated for many services in 1975 as had been allocated for 1972. This sum will finance only 45 per cent of the work necessary in the county. I hope that on the reorganisation of local authorities there will be an in-built safeguard which will prevent the situation where there is an engineering staff and an administrative staff capable of doing a certain amount of work but they are being strangled for lack of finance.

Mr. Kilbride

I do not intend to keep the House very long. Having read the White Paper produced by the former Minister, Deputy Molloy, and having read the document which is the subject of today's discussion, it strikes me that a very extensive overhaul of local government is necessary. The structure of local government we have today is that which was initiated in the middle of the nineteenth century, and, as we are now three-quarters of the way through the twentieth century, locations which then had certain potentials and served certain purposes do not serve the same purposes today. Consequently, certain urban areas, areas of potential mineral resources, industrial locations and other locations of interest require arrangements whereby the special needs of these areas will be met. What is good for one town may not be so good for another and what may suit one town may not suit another.

Let me take the case of a town with town commissioners, for instance, the town of Mullingar, which has a population of no less than 8,000. There we find the town commissioners being able to draw from the county council, at the expense of somebody living in a remote area in north Westmeath, a service of a very modern standard appropriate to the particular town but which is being paid for by somebody in the remote area who has not a good road to restore and who is never likely to enjoy these services. These people have to contribute, and the people in the large town have a completely urban outlook and no notion whatever of what the other people's circumstances are.

The Minister should set a standard for the population in respect of which it would be appropriate to have town commissioners as an urban authority. An urban council is an entity in itself. We all know that in the recent past urban authorities did not have to have some of their services supported by subventions from the county council. Urban areas, on the other hand, in certain growth areas have expanded far outside the confines of their authority. There was a reason for the aim to have equality of responsibility as between the towns and the rural areas.

It is an anomaly that county councillors should be providing a rural service at point A and that at point B the urban council would have authority. This is the situation that has obtained in most towns that have expanded in the last ten to 15 years. Members of every local authority, irrespective of what their political persuasions are, breathed a sigh of relief when this White Paper came out. Every urban councillor congratulated the Minister that urban authorities were not being eliminated and that the status which has and should be associated with progressive towns and towns which already have urban councils should be maintained. The outlook of an urban dweller is vastly different from that of a rural dweller. The urban area, because of the amount of industry and the density of the population, has to have certain standards for amenities such as water, sewerage, light, parks and so on.

The cost of providing these and the interest in them is for a large urban area on its own. The smaller urban areas at the other end of the scale are certainly not able to stand on their own feet because extensive growth in population or industry has not taken place over the years. Certain areas, because of geographical location, mineral resources, and tourist interest have progressed extensively. Some urban authorities are at the same standard today as they were in the early twenties after their initiation. Where there is such a wide variation in the structures of local government, if a universal system is applied, it will impose a hardship on one section of a community and confer unfair advantages on another.

What was envisaged in the White Paper by the former Minister was that local voluntary committees should have the right to have a say in administration. Where an urban authority of nine members existed, four of them could be from voluntary organisations. If that sort of an organisation, plus four or five county councillors, was to determine what went on in a housing scheme, in the development of services of any kind, water, sewerage and so on, then an urban area would have a haphazard structure of local government without the people at the ballot box having a say as to who were to be their representatives. I think the present Minister's departure from that was a gesture welcomed by all.

The minimum structure of local government is town commissioners serving a very small population made up of an extended area of hinterland. For example, in Granard, where I have been a member of the town commissioners for almost 25 years, I find that 40 per cent of the valuation in that urban area is on agricultural land. The population is a little more than 1,000. Yet a town clerk, a town surveyor, a rent collector, caretakers, and so on, have to be paid for looking after a small amount of property. There is no need for a town surveyor; the county council could handle that end of it. There is no need for the retention of responsibility for less than 80 houses the property of the town commissioners. The county council could take responsibility for those also, as they have for 80 or 90 more houses which were built within the last few years.

There is the other end of the scale where people in a rural district are mulcted with a special town rate — let me say this in reference to what Senator McGowan said — and the urban authority there strikes a rate of roughly 60p in the £. Somebody may say it is great to be in that area where the town commissioners have only a rate of 60p. But they may not realise that this 60p is in addition to a rate of £7.40 which is the county rate. The county rate of £7.40 plus this 60p charged by the town commissioners falls upon the town dwellers. The people in that urban area are obliged to pay towards water and sewerage and housing in the rest of the county. In respect of their own housing they are obliged to stand on their own feet. That is an anomaly that I would appeal to the Minister to eliminate. Recently, thanks to the Minister of the time we did have a section put into a recent Housing Act whereby the county council could, if they wished, come to the rescue of such an authority. Fortunately, our county council have come to the rescue and have provided for bathrooms, and so on, in 74 houses belonging to the town commissioners.

These are examples of what the Minister is faced with. In order to regularise that and have a structure of local government which will not by its general application present difficulties in one urban authority and confer unwarranted advantages on another, I wish him the best of luck when he starts this new local authority structure.

We had in the past problems of county councils agitating with urban councils with regard to where heavy traffic was to be directed and so on. When the urban council builds a house and it becomes part of a housing scheme, the occupier of that house should have the same right to the public road, at the general expense of all ratepayers and of the State, as somebody who happens to be either in O'Connell Street or in a remote road taken over by the county council. Roads should be a national charge. The county councils should be the road authority. The responsibility of providing roads is something for which urban councils have not the resources. Urban councils would have to carry a very extensive service if they were to provide these amenities.

Legislation on restructuring local government will eventually come before both Houses. At this stage may we say to the Minister: "You have taken all our recommendations into account and you have produced something worthy of 20th century planning in other fields"? It is not always possible to do all the things that we would like, but we would like the Minister to do what is best in the light of all that has been said.

Miss Owens

I welcome the opportunity of discussing this discussion paper particularly because, being a Member of the previous Seanad, those of us who were in the House at the time were disappointed that we did not have an opportunity of discussing the previous Minister's White Paper on Local Government Reorganisation.

This is a discussion document and as such does not go very deeply into the need for local government reorganisation. One must accept the principle that it is good to have a discussion document, because it may bring out some new ideas and some new thoughts. I would fault both this discussion document and the previous White Paper in their approach to the whole problem of local government reorganisation. Both of them approached it in a very narrow context and looked at local government with its functions and services as of today rather than what are the future needs of the community in regard to local government.

In the present document, the document which we are discussing today, the Minister states that he intends retaining the smaller local authorities. This has been universally welcomed from all sides of the political divide. The Minister was right having made that statement, to try and define a bit more clearly what their functions and powers should be and to try to get them into easily identifiable compartments. This has to be done if we are to avoid the present confusion, waste and lack of expertise in some smaller local authority areas.

While this is not a positive statement of what will be implemented, it was worthwhile putting down the views of what the Minister thinks should be the functions, and broadly speaking, I agree with him. I think the division is fairly good.

One of the other controversial items in the previous Minister's White Paper was the proposal to merge the three Dublin authorities into one area, which presumably would have been called something like the "greater Dublin area". I must say I am glad this proposal has been abandoned. This stirred up tremendous political controversy in the Dublin area, and is now history. The whole Dublin area needs to be examined very carefully in relation to the operation of local government. The discussion document points to the need for boundary adjustment. Senator McGlinchey referred to similar problems in his area. This must be done and done rather quickly. It should not necessarily be delayed for the implementation of a complete reorganisation of local government.

We have, for instance the ludicrous position in Ballymun in the north city and county that the county boundary runs practically through one block of flats. The children on one side, in the county area, cannot get school meals, whereas the children who are in the city area can get them. Equally in the industrial estate in Coolock, one poor unfortunate industrialist had to apply to both authorities for his planning permission because a county boundary ran right through his proposed factory. This adjustment of boundaries should be approached in the attitude not that it is the city taking over part of the county area or vice versa, but in a reasonable exchange of lands to get us out of this ludicrous position which exists at the moment.

There is also a proposal to set up joint committees within the Dublin area, and I welcome the idea of doing it on a mandatory basis. We have at the moment many joint committees in operation on a voluntary basis. They have met with very mixed success partly because there seems to be a deep distrust between the elected members of one local authority about the operations and functions of the other. In paragraph 16, on general issues, the Minister states that he believes the power of local authorities should be widened. This is very important. He has already tried to devolve some of the centralised power of his Department to the local authorities, and I would welcome an extension of that and indeed the removal of the whole power of sanction which has stultified many good ideas in local areas. That power of sanction needs to be examined deeply and I would rather see it removed altogether.

The Minister also says that he would like to restate the permissive powers of local authorities and modernise the ultra vires rule. This again is very important and I welcome the suggestion. My own concept is that a local authority should have the power to do everything that needs to be done in the community, that is. everything except what is specifically retained by the central power. But they should not be in a position of having to wonder: “Have we power to provide this particular thing that is not being provided?” It should be within their power, taking into account that we assume always that they will act with reasonableness, and therefore I could welcome very much the widening of the ultra vires rule.

Senator McGlinchey said that it was in 1961 he first got an indication of local government reorganisation. I do not dispute that, but I think the need for local government reorganisation has been there from a much earlier period than 1961. We need it, because we need to strengthen and enlarge the concept of local government in the circumstances arising from social and economic development of our community in the post-war period. I also think it needs to be done and examined to prevent the continued erosion of the existing system by the tendency to hive off various services in an ad hoc manner to State-sponsored bodies and boards. The most recent example of a hiving off was the setting up of the health boards. Other examples are regional tourism and, indeed, the Industrial Development Authority. This is a trend in Irish structures and society which developed in the post-war era, and it is time and past time that we stopped and examined it.

We now have a highly centralised form of State government which has underminded the democratic participation of the community in some levels of social and political affairs. The basic principles of local government are laid down in an Act of 1898, which set up the county unit. Since then we have had a considerable volume of local government legislation but mostly dealing with development services rather than with organisation. It dealt with the innovation of the city and county management system. I am surprised that to date none of the local elected representatives has referred to this as I thought it was one of the great bones of contention with local elected representatives. This system did bring efficiency into the local service, but it removed part of the democratic process, not deliberately but in its operation.

Referring back to what I said earlier about what has been hived off, services such as health, education, economic planning and development are ideally matters which the local community should be able to introduce. In our present structures they are not able to do this. If we retain the county as a unit — and I think we should because it is very deeply ingrained in Irish life now as a unit which people relate to very easily — and if we expand our local government service, we may then have to look at what Senator McGowan was saying in relation to certain functions, at least, a regional level of local government as well. I do not want to develop that one too far, except to say that I feel very strongly that any other organisational arrangement that is made on a regional basis will at least take the opportunity of having the one module and not have a county in one region for development purposes, in another region for health purposes, and in another region perhaps for tourism.

Both of these papers did not broaden the debate enough in their approach to local government. If we are to reorganise local government, we should look at the functions of the other Departments of State and see what we can revolve back to the local government level. Therefore the only way we can approach the matter is not to confine it to the Department of Local Government but to have whatever body the community in the 1970s or, indeed, up to the end of this century, will require for local government.

My suggestion, for what it is worth, is that the House would be admirably equipped to set up a select committee to examine the whole functions and operations of local government. It might be better to have a select committee of both Houses, but I am only suggesting this. I would see this body, whatever group of people they may be, as one which would consult with the elected representatives at every local level, with community organisations, with organisations such as the National Association of Tenants' Organisations, with the staff representatives in local government. They should also examine the operation of the City and County Management Acts.

Another area which we have not touched on at all so far today is that political parties themselves should revise their attitudes to local government. I do not agree that politics should be taken out of local government. It is political decisions that are made at local government level, and political parties have a valid interest in these political positions. Political parties, in my concept of a revised structure of local government, might look on local government in a different light. They would find that there was a very satisfactory political career to be had in an engagement in politics at local level. Added to this, I would see part of the reorganising to include that remuneration should be paid at least to the chairman or chairmen, and that it would be a full-time, paid, elective post. I would also see that every local representative would be supplied with adequate secretarial services and research services. Included in the survey or review of our structure I would ask that the question of staff development and career structure be examined. A career in local government can vary very much and provide job satisfaction. That is very important from the point of view of recruitment because people coming into the area should have a career structure which they could follow and training should be available.

Finally, given a national understanding of what is meant by real local government and an elaboration of appropriate local government institutions at various levels, all the services I mentioned, such as education and health, could be incorporated into a local government system. This could be done in such a way as to bring about a considerable decentralisation of government.

The opportunities which a democratically based local government system would provide to local communities and to the nation at large by such participation would make a major contribution towards the further development of the socio-political organs in our community along democratic lines and thus arrest a further growth of centralised bureaucracy and the alienation of the community from government.

Mr. Dolan

Perhaps we should be very thankful to Deputy Molloy who was responsible for initiating discussion on the whole formation of local government. Local authorities were first set up in 1898. It was only natural to expect that over the long troubled period in our history from then until now, it was found necessary to examine in some detail local government structure. The document the Minister issued was very important because it highlighted many interesting things and gave rise to much discussion and debate. By doing that, he was able to get the best out of the county councils and urban councils.

Despite what has been said about the 14-point plan, naturally one would question the delay, seeing it is now two years since this matter was introduced. Many county councils were more or less rushed into a quick discussion and examinatiton of this document because the Minister set the deadline for the month of February last year. Despite that, nothing has happened in the meantime. Perhaps the fact we are having this discussion today will put the final seal on this and the Minister will get down to doing something concrete about the matter soon.

Most of us agree county councils are very important bodies. They provide one way of having some devolution of power, so far as the community at large is concerned. A county council must be elected on a democratic basis through a secret ballot. This is the best test that can be applied to the formation of any responsible body. The fact that county councillors must be elected is tremendously important. The same would apply, of course, to urban councils and town commissioners. There is no substitute for this system — the individual who subjects himself to letting his name go forward, allowing the community in the area to judge on his capabilities and to hold a watching brief on his performances during his term as an elected member. In that way they can scrutinise and judge for themselves what effective contributions elected representatives can make and can estimate their value as public representatives. For that reason, I have always had misgivings about the suggestion to allow members of local communities to take their places along with elected representatives on either urban or county councils.

The way to gain entrance to these bodies should be through the ballot box, and I should not like to see that abolished in any shape or form. I agree that there should be communication with local communities and, indeed, local voluntary bodies who are doing a tremendous amount of voluntary work on behalf of the community. Any county councillor or public representative should do his best to ensure that there would be consultation and a sound examination of any proposals which these people put forward, because they are dedicated people working at local level and trying to do their best for their own areas. There is nothing selfish in such organisations. The same would apply in ordinary life. It behoves every person to do the best he can for himself and his family. Likewise it behoves people living in certain parishes, small towns, villages, and so on, to take a pride in their own areas. It is only right that these people should get a fair share of what is going by way of grants towards improvements and so on. Community and local organisations teach people that it is a good thing for them to rely not alone on the elected government to solve all their problems, but to think out these problems for themselves and so to help their areas. In that way, many worthwhile things have been accomplished by such organisations and will be in the future. I regret that amenity grants, which were being used by many of these communities to do what they considered very necessary jobs, have been withdrawn. I hope it will not be for long.

I should also like to mention co-operation between various county councils. Senator Owens mentioned it in another way when she referred to the regional areas. It was a mistake in the beginning to set up regional areas under different headings. In my home county of Cavan, we find ourselves, under the heading of tourist development, in the Midland Regional Tourist Development Association. But when we come to regional development, we are in with County Louth and County Monaghan. We have no objection to that except that they do not correspond as a region. When it comes to health, we find ourselves in the North-Eastern Health Board, comprising Counties Meath, Louth, Monaghan and Cavan.

Had we at the beginning studied some of our past history and read of the seacht ríocht in our country long ago, seven natural divisions, or some of the older divisions, it might have been possible to devise a common area for the various counties involved. The county boundaries were more or less defined around 1607. There is a certain amount of finality to them and the people who live within these boundaries have a certain pride in them. It is not an easy thing to get away from county boundaries. The present Government were not able to preserve the county boundaries: when the Electoral Amendment Act was going through here county boundaries were slashed up and down the country in an effort to manoeuvre certain seats and so on. There is a bit of a mix up regarding regions. There has been a tendency to cut across the county boundaries and put them into regions. But, as I say it is a pity that we could not have the one region common to the areas concerned.

There should be co-operation between county councils at certain levels and between county councils and urban councils. The position in Dublin has been referred to. During Deputy Molloy's term in office there was a proposal to make one authority responsible for all County Dublin. That was a good proposition. We in the northern part of the country have been frustrated industrially and economically. On the way to Dublin city from Cavan one finds that at some places, such as Clonee and Mulhuddart, portion of the road is worse than the roads in County Cavan. It is a deplorable state of affairs that such a situation can exist in 1975. The people living in the country areas, the people who are producing the goods, manufacturing and exporting, are hampered and hamstrung. I suppose it is not fair to blame Dublin County Council or Dublin Corporation, but the responsibility is between them and we are the sufferers. Reference was made to boundaries running through big housing estates, leaving some school-going children entitled to school meals and others not. These are situations that should never have existed and this document should show some means of solving the problem. These are the human problems that affect the lives of people living in a city area.

As far as I can see from this discussion document urban councils will be retained. It had been suggested that urban councils should be abolished unless they had a population of about 10,000. Now I see it is proposed to retain them in many areas, but they will have very little power. If they are being retained, they should be given some semblance of authority. Almost every function will be referred to the county council and on an appeal to the Minister.

There should not be such great divisions between urban and rural areas. In my county there is only one urban council within its boundaries and two town commissioners. The remainder of the people are living in what is called rural Ireland. We are gradually moving away from the situation in which there is a vast difference between those who live in an urban area and those in a rural area. The people in rural Ireland demand and expect to get the same amenities and facilities, as far as possible, as are provided in urban areas. We are giving too much encouragement to people to live in urban areas. Our population is unevenly divided, most of it in the east, where in many areas no housing is available. There are not sufficient schools, churches and hospitals to meet the needs of the people.

There is a reluctance to locate industry, housing, universities or any worthwhile schemes in rural Ireland. In the north-west counties of Cavan, Leitrim, Sligo, Mayo or Donegal people rearing families have no hope of ever sending their children to a university. They may be only small farmers but due to their geographical position they are penalised. Unless such people are sufficiently well financed, their children will not have a hope of a third-level education. However if they lived in a built-up area, they would have the necessary facilities for secondary and third level education. That is one of the reasons many country people drift into built-up areas. In my county we had the experience of not being able to get a dentist to live in the rural area. They usually insist on living in Cavan town or in Dublin and travelling down when necessary.

Situations such as this mitigate very much against the advancement of our rural communities and discourage people from living in a rural area. The more urban areas that are built up on the eastern seaboard, the more problems we are creating. The schools and colleges on the other side of the country are being left empty, as are the houses. Small towns and villages are practically deserted. I would like to see this tendency of drifting towards the east coast stopped. One way of preventing it would be to ensure that local councils would have a greater say and that their opinions would be respected. Departments should have county representatives. When people in Cavan want to contact an office of any kind they should not have to come in deputations to Dublin. The Departments should go to towns such as Cavan and other areas throughout the country, rather than compel people to travel, perhaps in adverse conditions, to meet Ministers or their representatives.

The county council should also be encouraged to take an interest in many local schemes such as forestry and land division. These are matters that should be known at local level. It is true that there are county development officers, who are doing an excellent job in many areas, but they are often fighting a losing battle when trying to get grants for industry or to get new industry into an area. The first thing an industrialist looks at is the road structure. He will not choose a place that is situated a long way from a port; and if there are no adequate roads leading from it, it is useless to tell him that there may be improvements made within 20 years. The arterial roads leading to the cities and ports should be well maintained if the rural areas are to be given a chance of survival. In the north-eastern region, to which I belong, we were trying to get a road provided from Cavan to Dundalk, Greenore or Drogheda, because we cannot get into Dublin. We do not know when this will happen. There does not appear to be any money being provided to carry out the work.

The county manager of my own county is a tremendously progressive man. He visited all the small towns and villages in order to find out if there would be land available for housing. Then, if an industrialist came along, he tried to ensure that there would be certain infrastructure available in the areas where new industries could be placed. That is the type of development needed, and something in which a county council should be interested. In County Cavan, in common with other counties, we have given remission of rates for ten years to industrialists to encourage them into the county. We would like to see people remaining in the rural areas, and therefore the county councils should take an interest in industries, road structure, water and sewerage.

We, in County Cavan, discussed this document at county council level over 12 months ago. To be fair to the Minister, we did not write it off entirely. While agreeing in principle the proposals to transfer the major functions of the urban councils to the county councils, we realised that there was a need to examine the financial implications involved and to ensure equity between the urban and rural dweller and that further detailed consultation would be necessary on this aspect of the proposal. It was agreed that responsibility for roads in urban areas should also be transferred to the county council, along with other major changes proposed in the document. We felt that many urban councils were not capable of making roads, especially the main road running through their areas.

It was also proposed to retain town commissioners and:

That the Minister should give such bodies the general power to spend any surplus funds available to them on works of improvement or amenity in their areas.

I made reference to the fact that the amenity grants appear to be discontinued, so for the present at any rate that might not mean very much.

In regard to the proposals at paragraph 16 of the document, we expressed the view that the devolution of authority from the central to the local government unit and the relaxation of administrative controls should be as wide and as far-reaching as possible.

These were some of the recommendations made by the Cavan County Council. We should like the Minister to examine them. County councils from all over the country sent in replies over 12 months ago. They are lying dormant on the Minister's desk since. Perhaps, now that this proposal has been discussed today, the Minister will take a fresh look at the recommendations made by the various county councils.

Mr. O'Toole

I welcome this document. As was stated, it is high time that the whole matter of local authority should be discussed in depth. In the preamble to the discussion document there is reference to the element of local democracy being preserved by what is outlined in the document.

I am amazed at the ease with which some of the speakers from the opposite side have misinterpreted plain and unambiguous language. A county council is a local authority. Some speakers — not Senator Dolan I am glad to say — felt that the reduction of some of the powers vested in urban district councils and town commissioners would result in the complete abolition of any authority exercised at local level. The logic of the argument is that if the Minister proposes to take some of the functions heretofore vested in urban councils and transfer them to county councils, so be it. The question is to try and strike a balance for the good of the area in which those councils operate.

One of the faults to be found in the discussion on the document — it might be the fault of the document in that it is too narrow in its view, and I think Senator Owens referred to this — is that we seem to be discussing a struggle for power between urban district councils and town commissioners on the one hand and county councils on the other. This is a foolish approach. We should be concerned with a local authority policy which would be for the benefit of the country in general and for the local areas in which they operate in particular.

Some of the arguments put forward by Members of the Opposition would seem to be bereft of any logic, simply because, on the one hand, they seem to condone the proposed actions of the Minister's predecessor — which proposed the abolition of councils in towns with a population of less than 10,000 — and on the other hand they find fault with the proposals in the Minister's discussion document because there is a suggestion that some of the powers vested in these councils might be transferred to county councils. They cannot have it both ways. Some logic must be applied. If that is done, the folly of such an argument will be seen.

The fault I find with this document, and it has its faults the same as any other document, is that it is too narrow in its concept of what a local authority ought to be. It is confined to one Department. I should like to see an authority created which would span the whole area of services in a particular region. For example, at the moment we have regions which are not based on any definite geographic pattern. As Senator Dolan pointed out, Cavan is in one region for one thing and in another region for something else. We have the same experience in our county. If we are to get a comprehensive policy on local democracy and regional government, which will get us away from the centralised system we are operating at present, we must broaden our horizons, not only for an individual local government department but also into the field of education, tourism, fishery, agriculture; in other words, all aspects of life must be catered for by such an authority. To do this would involve a radical approach, and very many changes would result. Some of them might result in teething troubles which could be ironed out as we went along. Many of us may feel that the regional health boards have faults which were not evident in the first year of operation. We can now look back and say that they would be better organised if we had another chance. The same argument would apply to any new ground being broken in this area.

The promotion of local democracy, if it is to be achieved, demands a radical approach. It demands, first of all, political courage from the Government of the day. Because to break away from a system which we have operated for so long will not be easy. Let us look at the word "democracy"—the most abused word in the English language. It has been found that a democracy can be self-destructive. If from Government level down we give people executive powers at regional, county council, urban council and parochial levels, we will never get anywhere. This is democracy at work, but how effective it is to get the work done is a different matter altogether. In fact, it is a self-destructive process because somebody must call the tune. There must be somewhere somebody in authority who can, first of all, provide the money to execute plans and to bring about development.

Business suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. O'Toole

I was referring to the idea of democracy at local level and the seeming abuse of the word "democracy" which was evident in what has been said here today — a misinterpretation or a misunderstanding rather than an abuse. We are all in favour, and it is desirable from all points of view, that the element of local democracy be promoted and maintained as far as possible. The result must be a viable system of local democracy where some things can be done. It is no use having democracy for the sake of democracy alone.

In the discussion document the Minister has set out in paragraph 3 that he is opposed to the abolition of a large number of smaller local authorities and would favour instead a series of measures aimed at promoting more effective local administration while preserving the democratic character of local government. This assurance that he will not abolish, as his predecessor had intended to, small local authorities, urban councils and so forth, is to be welcomed.

The reasons he has given in the discussion document are very justifiable. If we take, for example, planning and development, we all know that in provincial centres — take a town of 5,000 or 6,000 population where development is taking place at the moment — you will find if you are involved in local government at urban council level or county council level there is great overlapping of functions between urban and county councils. On the question of infrastructure for industry — water, sewerage, housing, drainage and so on there must be very close co-operation between urban and district councils and urban and county councils. For the sake of efficiency, the idea suggested in the discussion document that these functions ought to be the functions of county councils is a very wise one.

The Minister is not ruling out the functions of the town councils or local urban councils in a consultative capacity. They will be there to draw up some plans in conjunction with the county councils. The same thing applies to sanitary services. If I might take the example of my own town, at the moment we are in the throes of providing a new water scheme, which is a very expensive item, as anybody can see from figures, and a new drainage system for the urban area. However, we cannot do it without the full co-operation of the county council, simply because the source of our supply is outside the urban area and the drainage system comprises mostly areas over which the county council have control and not the urban council.

Up to now, all main roads through towns have been the responsibility of the county councils and the Minister has suggested that this be left unchanged and that the urban councils be responsible for the other roads in the towns. This, as he says, is a fair balance. It gives the urban council a function which they might not have if the Minister's predecessor had his way.

I should like to point out that Senator McGlinchey mentioned that the only function left to the urban council now is that of granting licences to a local cinema. I happened to be at an urban council meeting last Tuesday night and of 13 items on the agenda there were something like nine for which the county council had some responsibility and indeed in some cases the urban council could do very little without the sanction and the blessing of the county council. For the sake of efficiency and expedition, the county council ought to be given the functions, as suggested in the White Paper.

The overall responsibility for housing is also to be passed on to the county council, together with the functions of the urban council, which are the functions of assessing the needs in their urban areas. This is a very important function and somebody from the other side this morning suggested that we would lose out if this were implemented because the block allocation of money made to the county council could be used in such a way that the urban areas would not get their fair share. That is on the assumption, of course, that there would be no additional moneys made available to the county council for taking the urban councils under their wing. I am sure the Minister will have other ideas on that and that the block allocation made will be increased for the provision of housing in the urban areas.

There is one overriding factor in all this discussion which I think should be mentioned and it is the present day function of a county council. In my county I can see the proper function of the county council as being that of a developing company or corporation with a very large turnover, providing services and facilities to improve the area over which they have control to promote industry, to promote development and all the other activities in the lives of the people. As a development company, they must have some freedom to operate as they see fit.

I am glad to see the suggestion in paragraph 16 concerning the powers of local authorities. The Minister believes that the powers of the local authorities should be widened and that there should be a reduction in the detailed control exercised by his Department. A special inter-departmental group are examining this matter in depth at the moment. Apart from questions of devolution, there is also a need to restate the permissive powers of local authorities on a broader basis and to notify the ultra vires rule. The importance of a county council is as a development company. This is the function they are taking on nowadays whether they like it or not.

Far too many politicians seem to play politics at local level. We are all involved in political parties. I would think it a sad day if political parties withdrew as such from local authorities because they have a function to operate and implement schemes and so on; but to play party politics at local level is wrong and is hindering the progress of councils whose function it should be to promote the welfare of their areas. If we take the functions of a county council as being that of a development company or a corporation, then playing party politics in such a situation is unjustifiable and wrong.

Broadly speaking, I am in agreement with most of the suggestions as outlined in the discussion document. I should like to voice again my reservations on the narrow approach. Being a discussion document, I presume the Minister is looking for suggestions from outside and possibly this discussion document is just something to make us sit down and think. When it comes down to formulating policy on the future of local authorities as a result of the discussions that this document has prompted, he will be in a better position to broaden the horizon and see what best can be done for local authorities and local democracy in this country.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Tully)

First, I should like to thank the Senators for allowing me to come in at this time, out of turn. I am very glad to have the opportunity of hearing the views of the Senators on this discussion document. Let me again repeat that it is a discussion document. While a number of the views expressed were perhaps rather contradictory in some cases, at the same time I feel that discussing them here at this level gives everybody an opportunity of straightening out some things about which we may not be too clear.

There are a few points I should like to clarify at the very start. One is that as far as I am concerned elected members of local authorities are the most important because they are really the people who have the responsibility for doing the job. In no circumstances would I be prepared to agree to the suggestion made by my predecessor that there should be in certain bodies certain co-optives who are not elected. I want to repeat that as far as I am concerned those who are elected to office will retain that office and the responsibility that goes with it.

Second, I want to make it very clear that I have or had no intention of allowing small local authorities to be wiped out and I am very glad to find that not alone here in the House, on all sides, but throughout the country, no matter which shade of political opinion I discussed this matter with, I found a unanimous view that the previous Minister was wrong in deciding to wipe out 42 local authorities. Indeed the difference between the attitude of the previous Minister and mine is that he issued a White Paper saying what he was going to do and I issued a discussion document asking the elected representatives of this country and others what they thought I should do.

What I got back, in the main, has been in line with my own thinking. There are, however, a few things I should refer to. One is that there may appear to be a long delay because this discussion document was issued in December, 1973, and I asked that I should have the views of the local authorities before 28th February, 1974. Most of the local authorities have submitted their views, but so far I have only an interim report from the three Dublin authorities. As the saying goes, "The nearer the church, the further from God." It is rather a pity that they did not pay a little more attention to this. I am aware that an election intervened but at the same time I feel that almost 12 months after the closing date I should have the views of the Dublin authorities. I am aware they had a lot of other things to do. But as soon as I get this — I understand I will have it in the very near future — I will then be going forward to prepare the necessary legislation.

There are a few things I cannot blame people for misunderstanding when they read them in my discussion document, but I can blame them when they were present and heard me explaining what they meant and still did not seem to understand them. That refers particularly to the powers which would be retained by those small local authorities. I made it quite clear on more than one occassion, and was particularly definite at the Association of Municipal Authorities dinner in Galway on 12th September, 1974, when I said: "It was never intended that functions of smaller urban authorities would be taken from them contrary to their wishes." Indeed The Irish Times, the following day, with their usual flair for setting a headline, stated: “Tully Denies Intention to Strip Power from Councils.” That was on 13th September. A number of people here today repeated that they thought I had intended to take powers against their will from small authorities were present at that time.

Mr. McGlinchey

I was not.

Seanad Éireann debate - Thursday, 20 Feb 1975

Local Government Reorganisation: Motion.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

An Leas-Chathaoirlech

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 20 Feb 1975