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.