I move:
That Seanad Éireann confirms the following Order:
Local Elections (Specification of Local Election Year) Order, 1984.
a copy of which Order was laid before Seanad Éireann on the 13th day of January, 1984.
Local Elections (Specification of Local Election Year) Order, 1984.
The purpose of the order, which has been laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas, is to postpone for one year the local elections which would otherwise fall to be held in June 1984. The statutory provision for altering the period for holding local elections is contained in section 2 of the Local Elections Act, 1973. This section provides that where the Minister is satisfied that local elections should be postponed he may, by order, provide that the elections shall be held in a year specified in the order. Such an order shall not come into effect unless and until a copy thereof has been laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the order has been confirmed by resolution of each House.
Senators will be aware of the statement issued by me in December indicating that the Government had decided on this step in order to provide time to enable the review of the local government system, which is at present under way, to be brought to a conclusion. The statement recalled that the Programme for Government 1981-1986 had indicated that local government would be reformed through a reduction in central control and a restructuring to take account of changes in population and the growth of community organisations. It referred to an appropriate status being given to expanding towns and new local government units being established in Dublin city and county. The Seanad will be aware, from statements made by the Tánaiste, my predecessor in this office, that the examination of this whole question has been proceeding.
There are many reasons why local government should be reformed. In many ways the system remains as it was originally established in the last century although the social and economic conditions in which it operates have altered dramatically. Our level of population growth, increasing urbanisation, changing employment and mobility patterns and increased recreational needs all make demands on a scale which the system was not designed to meet.
The functions of local authorities have been extended in many respects and new functions have been added. Urban expansion has made many town boundaries irrelevant to the pattern of development; this is a situation which hampers proper planning and causes a distortion of democratic representation in the areas concerned. There are particular problems in the Dublin area because of the scale and pace of development there, and there is need for effective co-ordination in the provision of service through the metropolitan area. Regard must also be had to the special needs of the major new development areas in the west of the county. These areas need a more local forum of representation within the local government system. In all areas the growth in community organisations and the demand for public involvement in local affairs underlines the need for closer communication between local authorities and the communities which they serve.
The work which is now in progress in my Department in examining the local government system extends to the arrangements for financing the system. There has been a serious deterioration in the state of local authority finances over the past five years. It is traceable to the abolition of domestic rates and the failure of the Government of the time to devise an adequate and sustainable alternative financing arrangement. A further serious blow has been the successful constitutional challenge to the agricultural rating system. As a result of these developments, mainly, the proportion of local authority current spending which comes from the Exchequer has gone from 39 per cent in 1977 to 66 per cent.
Apart from the fact that the Exchequer is in no position to take on additional commitments of this kind under current conditions, this trend means that the degree of financial independence and discretion which was previously available to the local authorities has been seriously eroded.
It would be foolish to suggest that there is any prospect of an easy or painless way out of this situation in terms of improving the general financial state of local authorities while restoring greater financial independence locally. It would be foolish, too, to think that local authorities can, or should, be exempted from the constraints to which public sector spending as a whole is necessarily subject in the present economic climate. But I am sure that all will agree that an adequate and suitable financing base is essential for healthy and effective local government and that it is right, therefore, that consideration of review and reform in the system should cover the financing question.
I doubt if there is anybody with any knowledge of the local government system who will question the need for a through review at this time. I doubt also, if there is anybody who would question the wisdom of bringing such a review to a conclusion before embarking on an election of new local councils. Ordinary commonsense would suggest that the review should be completed before holding new elections.
This is the first occasion on which the power to postpone local elections by order under the 1973 Act is being invoked. It is not, of course, the first occasion on which local elections were postponed. For the record, the holding of local elections was postponed on 13 different occasions since independence.
If the present order is confirmed by both Houses, the next local elections will fall due in June 1985. In accordance with the provisions of the Local Elections Act, 1973, the present members of local authorities will continue to hold office until the new elections are held. The 1973 Act also contains consequential arrangements in relation to the appointment of school attendance committees and the meetings of vocational education committees.
I am confident that the Seanad will agree that the review of the local government system which is in progress is not alone important but overdue and urgently needed and that it is appropriate that elections should be deferred for one year to enable it to be brought to a conclusion.
We are completely opposed to the confirmation of this order to postpone the local elections for one year. The Minister has stated that local government reform is necessary. We all agree that local government reform is necessary, that it is an urgent priority, but I cannot see what bearing that has on the qualifications of people going forward for election. The case is made here that the greater Dublin area seems to be the area in real trouble with regard to boundaries, population bases, and other reasons given by the Minister.
Is it true to say that the remainder of the country is in order and that Dublin is the only place that needs local government reform? I disagree with that completely. The emphasis here seems to be that everything is rosy in the rest of the country but because Dublin has such a swelling population with need for a change of boundaries, we must postpone the local government elections in order to put that right. That is a very flimsy excuse. Of course that is not the reason for the postponement. The reason for the postponement is that the Government are afraid to go to the people. Every opportunity the people will get at this time they will show the nation that they are completely and utterly fed up with the performance of this Coalition Government. This is the only reason that the Government are afraid to go before the people this year.
Ráiméis.
I asked the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Quinn, if he could say the local government elections would be held in June 1984. He told me, and it is on record here, that they would be held in June 1984. Now there is second thinking on it, the reason being that they got a taste of the feeling of the people at the by-election in Dublin. That is the reason that they do not want to face the people on this occasion.
We hear every day now about cutbacks. Even yesterday in the Dáil the Minister for Health and Social Welfare said that we were going to save £2 million as a result of the withdrawal of medical cards from students. We would save £1 million if we ran the local elections with the European elections in June 1984. There seems to be no cognizance taken of that saving. I am talking about actual figures, not estimates like the Minister for Health; we would save £1 million, because the structures, the presiding officers, the polling booths, the polling clerks, the whole system will be set up for the European elections. All we would have to do is to provide an additional ballot box to cover the local elections. At a time when everybody seems to be saving millions of pounds on paper and when local authorities are in dire financial straits, this would be an appropriate time to run the elections with the European elections.
There will be the lowest poll in our electoral history in the European elections as a result of the failure to run the local elections with the European elections because of the scarcity of candidates in big rural constituencies. Take the Connacht-Ulster constituency. There are a number of counties there that will not have any candidate. How will enthusiasm be generated to bring out the electors to vote in the European elections unless there is some local interest to condition them to voting? It will be the lowest poll on record. That will suit the Government. If a very low poll is likely, it would be another political reason for not running the local elections this year. We are opposing the motion on the grounds that the people and most of the councillors are anxious and are ready to go before the people.
The Senator is right.
But the Government are not.
We are ready.
I am speaking for Mayo — I do not know what they are doing in Clare. We are ready and willing to go forward again and test our popularity with our local people, and we should not be denied that right. I reject the flimsy excuse that local government reform is being prepared and that therefore we should not have the elections until that has been carried out. There is no guarantee that we will have the elections in 1985 either. The elections can be postponed by another motion here. We should be honest with the people and give them an idea when we are going to have the local elections. I asked the Minister, Deputy Quinn, and he told me they would be held in 1984 and I took that as a fact. Something has happened since to change the views of the Government on this.
This is an unpopular move by the Government and whenever the people get an opportunity of registering their protest against this decision they will do so very effectively. When 1985 comes it will depend on the climate at that time whether the local elections are to be postponed for another year. The saving of £1 million is very necessary for the Exchequer. The withdrawal of student medical cards will save only an estimated £2 million. We should hold the elections. We on this side of the House will be opposing the postponement and putting it to a vote.
I welcome the Minister of State and the proposal he is making. I do not accept the case Senator O'Toole has made because I know he is delighted, as are the majority of his colleagues in local authorities, that the elections are being postponed. I have never met a councillor who was looking forward to elections, or any politician.
Speak for yourself. The Senator does not meet Fianna Fáil councillors.
I meet a few of them. I want to compliment the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Kavanagh, and the Minister of State, Deputy O'Brien, for taking this decision. As Senator O'Toole has said, it may not necessarily be the popular decision because people can say that the Government are running away from a fight, but it is more important that the Government should accept the challenges of the day and that they should bring the local government system into a position to serve the community.
There are areas where local government is being surrendered to local community vigilante groups and nobody wants that. It is a scandal that local government has not been reformed over the last few years. A third of the country's population is served by three local authorities. It is time we brought local government to the people, to give them an opportunity to get a fair deal and fair representation if we are keen on having strong, democratic institutions and councils. The Government are right and I hope the review that the Minister is undertaking will, as a matter of urgency, look at the power and duties of councillors and at their ability to effect policy changes. I hope the Minister will avail of every opportunity to effect greater decentralisation from the Custom House and O'Connell Bridge House to local authorities. It is ridiculous that the 27 county councils have not power to take the simplest of decisions. Councils should be able, without referring to the Custom House, to undertake the provision of small housing schemes in rural villages. There is need for greater decentralisation and for councillors to have greater control over the financial situation in their own counties.
As a result of dropping the poor law valuation system and with the fast disappearance of the rating system throughout the country, county councils and local authorities have found themselves almost totally dependent on the Exchequer and on the Department of the Environment for finance. I do not accept that this is healthy. I hope the reforms will result in handing back autonomy in these matters to the local authorities.
The postponement of the elections will give the Minister an opportunity to examine in depth the role that he and the Government would hope local authorities would play in developing infrastructures. There is no doubt that in the local authority service there would appear to be duplication. This is an opportunity to effect change and to bring the local authorities into line. Perhaps we should take this opportunity to look at local government structures in other countries. Some people may be frightened off by the fact that there is much adverse publicity about councillors going on trips abroad. I hope that for the next few months the Minister will encourage members of county councils to look at the structures of the greater councils, especially in the United Kingdom. It would be very interesting if they looked at the local government structures in Holland and Denmark. It is important, now that there is an opportunity for change, that councillors should see the structures in some of the countries in the EEC and pick from them the better parts that will assist them in their work.
Another point which is relevant is the workload of councillors. It is important that the opportunity should now be availed of to recompense councillors for the time they give to the public service. Twenty-five years ago or more when I was first elected to Laois County Council a half day or a day did not matter very much. I am not saying that everybody had a lot of time but time was not as costly as it is now. For people to be away from their business or employment is quite costly not only to themselves but to the business they leave behind. Margins in practically every walk of life are tighter and there is greater pressure on individuals. If we want to have our councils running well, we must strive to get busy people to serve on them. We must avail of this opportunity to see how we can assist councillors to be more efficient and give the same dedicated service that successive councillors in all of our administrative areas have traditionally given. To post a letter now costs 26p. The Minister should look at some way of empowering the county manager to provide franked envelopes and so on to enable councillors to be more effective. We have reached a stage where we cannot accept that membership of any of the local authorities would mean councillors being continually out of pocket. I am not asking that councillors should be paid, because that is not necessary, but it should not cost them a considerable amount of money to service the local authority and through it to give the people the benefit of their own expertise and experience over the year. The annual budget or estimates of most councils amounts to several million pounds. It is quite a considerable job to run a council and, therefore, it is important that we should have people who can comprehend the cost and the financial implications of schemes.
It is evident to everybody that there is in some cases, a lack of co-ordination and a lack of planning, especially between the different services and semi-State bodies serving the public. This is evident in the road section. There are towns throughout the country where streets are full of potholes or dug up for a year with sewerage works, followed by a new water system or ESB or gas installations or something else. It seems to be never-ending. There should be planning for this. I do not know how we can achieve co-ordination. We must have good planning which will result in a saving of our scarce resources.
There must be a tremendous amount of small and large infrastructure schemes waiting for sanction or funding in the Department. I hope councillors and local councils will have greater flexibility in preparing their own order of priority. Since the Department took full control of the arterial road network, considerable moneys — 100 per cent grants — are sent to service, repair and improve the network. It must be frustrating for many councils to find that most urgent repairs on county or secondary roads cannot be undertaken because the money is not available. This entire question should be looked at. I hope at the end of this review when we face into the local elections next year that councillors will be more effective, have greater financial control, greater authority and have a greater input into both the policies and working of the councils.
I am glad that the local elections are not being held on the same day as the European elections. It is important that there should be a large turn out at the European elections because our perception of the Community is important. The European issue should not be clouded by any other issues. From that point of view, there should be a European election. If the poll is a record low then it will be clearly seen as such and that will be to our benefit; the people involved in it will have the task of arousing public interest in the Community. I welcome the decision of the Government to introduce this motion in the House.
I thought that as a result of what we did in 1979 when we held the local elections and the European election on the same day that that would be the pattern for the future. The Minister made the point that elections have been postponed in the past. That is true and we cannot dispute it. I felt that once the pattern was set in 1979 that it would continue in that way.
Since 1981 we have had many elections — by-elections, general elections, and three Seanad elections. There are definitely far too many elections and the people are getting fed up with them. I do not like the foot slogging and I do not like the build up to elections — the conventions and the three months it takes to prepare for an election — but at the end of the day what we hope for in an election is a good result. The end result in a local election for us on this side of the House would have been a massive victory and there is no question about that. From that point of view I am disappointed that there will not be an election.
In 1979 we had the disadvantage of the Post Office strike and our results were very bad. We accept that, but on this occasion the reason, as has been mentioned by Senator O'Toole, that the local election is not being held is because the Government side would do very badly indeed. I calculate that we in Fianna Fáil would take control of at least 12 more county councils. Our result in the subsequent Seanad elections would increase dramatically. This primarily is the reason for the postponing of the elections. It has very little to do with the restructuring of local government because we have had report after report on restructuring. We spoke about it when former Deputy Tully and Deputy Molloy were Ministers for Local Government.
If one were to examine local government to see what is wrong with it, one could list eight or nine points immediately. For example, one could say that malicious injuries should not form part and parcel of a local government estimate. Drainage schemes should be a central charge. The up-keep of courthouses should be a central charge and the various statutory bodies — VEC, agriculture and so — should be paid for by the central Government. It could be argued that a fraction of the capital gains tax arising from compulsory purchase as a result of planning decisions should come into the coffers of the local authority concerned. It could also be argued that the money raised from motor vehicle taxation within a county should go to that county for the up-keep and the betterment of the roads of that county. All this could be done quite quickly. As I have said, it does not require the postponement of an election to do that. If the Government wanted to do something different why not have the elections, get the new councillors elected and proceed from there? That would seem to be more logical than what is being done at present. The Minister mentioned a period of one year but I am satisfied that it will not be one year. It will be at least two and it might even be three, as happened in the past. I have no doubt that after this one year extension a subsequent order will be introduced next year to extend it further.
The reasons given are not the correct ones. There is the fear of an election and understandably so. Government parties tend to do badly in local elections. That is a fact of life. A Government introducing difficult policies and decisions in a difficult economic time are bound to reduce their popularity.
I do not accept Senator McDonald's point. I cannot understand how he could be glad as one contesting a European election. I presume he will be a candidate and I wish him every success. If the local elections were held on the same day as the European elections, the local Fine Gael councillors, Labour councillors, Fianna Fáil councillors would get out to vote far more readily. When one is in a polling booth it is as easy to vote in two elections as it is in one. The local election would have the desired result of having a high poll and naturally that would be beneficial to the two elections.
There were many matters referred to which I did not think would be referred to in this type of debate. Local councillors generally are not getting a fair deal. I hope when reforms are introduced that they will get a better deal. The issue of free postage is one obvious case. Everybody here knows as well as I do, councillors who are holding the fort for their own political party in a corner of a constituency. They work hard but are penalised because they do not have the advantage of free postage. It is costing them a lot of money to be members of local authorities. I hope that free postage will be one item that members will have when this new reform is introduced and that the travelling allowance, which was recently increased, will be continued.
I am not at all happy that a colleague of mine, the chairman of Longford County Council, Councillor Michael Nevin, had the gate of Leinster House closed on him when he came here as a member of a deputation. He is an elected person. He proved himself in the election. He was elected on the basis of——
That is not relevant.
It is no harm to mention it. He was elected——
It is no good either.
He has publicity opposed violence. The majority of Sinn Féin councillors in the South oppose violence. If the Chair wants me to refrain from mentioning this I will. I hope the Government will take a different line on this matter.
I disagree with the foot slogging and all that but at the end of the day I feel that we would get a very good result. That is why the elections are being postponed and for no other reason.
I join in congratulating the Minister of State on his new appointment. I have no doubt that he will be as dedicated in this office as he has been in the posts he has held. I will quote from a speech the Minister of State made to the Local Authority Members Association. In the Local Authority Members News of this month he is quoted as saying:
The present system of democratically elected local Government has existed substantially unchanged since the end of the last century. The system has, through the years, played a key role in the administration of vital local services and has contributed in important ways to the economic development of the county. The intervening years have seen major changes in economic and social circumstances and the Government are conscious of the need for a thorough-going review of the local government system so that local authorities will be enabled to respond more fully to the challenges presented by those changes. Nowhere is the need for a review more pressing than in Dublin where the development of the city and surrounding areas has taken place without corresponding development in local government structures. The Government's aim is to identify ways of strengthening the local democratic system and making it more efficient.
He went on to say that in the process he hoped to have consultations both with the General Council of County Councils, which is the co-ordinating body of all the county councils in Ireland, the Association of Municipal Authorities, which coordinates all the other authorities, urban and town commissioners and with the Local Authority Members Association which represents the membership of local authorities through the country.
I am sure it would be a disappointment for Senator O'Toole if I listed for him publicly the number of his electorate who personally approached me to use any good offices that I might have with my party leader, the Tánaiste, who was then Minister for the Environment, to have the elections postponed. I will not embarrass the Senator by listing them. Some day I will tell him because they voted for him. They honestly felt that this was the most inopportune time to hold local government elections on the basis that local authorities were at their lowest possible ebb in terms of their powers, structures and finance. That is a challenge we have to face. If coming to grips with that problem means the postponement of these elections for one or two years, or for whatever reason——
It does not, as well the Senator knows.
I will give the Senator genuine reasons as well. First of all, the Senator said that this was not a problem for Dublin. I remind him that, as the Minister said in his major contribution to LAMA, in Dublin there are large areas which are not represented on any local authority in the numbers which they are entitled to be. That does not apply to Dublin only. It applies to many areas where there are large populations and there has been no change in the number of councillors representing them. The numbers have not been revised for a century.
There have been various reports about the reorganisation of local authorities. White Papers were published and there was a lot of talk but nothing was done. The only conclusive White Paper which came from Fianna Fáil was the one to abolish the vast majority of local authorities. They were to be scrapped because they had no relevance in Deputy Molloy's view. This went against everything that Fianna Fáil stand for and that we stand for. The democratically elected people, whether at town commissioner level, urban council level, county borough or county council level have a vote in the Seanad election.
The Senator is talking about something that did not happen.
Does the Senator know why it did not happen? It was because you raised your voice in opposition to the Minister's White Paper which would abolish democracy as we know it.
The Government are doing it here today.
That is the only constructive resolution that came from that party. It was unacceptable but at least it was a White Paper. Now we are doing what needs to be done as regards local authority restructuring and getting down to the nitty gritty. There is a major problem about boundaries between cities and towns and the urban and rural areas surrounding them There are petty little differences about whether a city should expand further into a county or whether the county wants that to happen and what areas particular members of local authorities represent. That is the first key problem. If we do not tackle that problem many people will be under-represented. It is irrelevant who represents them so long as they are elected democratically by the people.
To think that any of us on this side of the House is afraid to contest an election on those grounds is a fallacy. We were so sure that this reform would be completed that in my constituency selection conferences have taken place to nominate the people to contest the election. The Fianna Fáil Whip who comes from the same constituency knows that. He knows that we were preparing because we are ever ready to contest an election on these issues, not on issues that are irrelevant to county councils.
On a point of order, we are totally in agreement with local government reform. What Senator Ferris is trying to suggest is that we are against local government reform. We are all for it. It has not come quickly enough. It is not the reason for the postponement. That is my point.
The Senator speaks of electing people now and then having reforms. If the reforms involve boundaries, how can people be elected if we reform the boundaries? Nobody would know which particular electoral area the Senator is talking about. We are talking about extending wards or changing them. I am not just talking about county council elections. I am talking about the whole fabric of local democracy at local level. That is an important point. We cannot review it in an election year because we could alter the actual representation and even the number of people who would represent a particular town or community whether it be urban or county.
It is of paramount importance that if that kind of review is going on, and I understand that it is a key one in the review, that must be completed before you can decide to have elections otherwise you are running in the face of democracy. I contend that it is the primary consideration in any review that the boundaries be looked at. I am in favour in this review about boundaries, of giving as much autonomy and local powers as possible to towns which do not have urban councils at the moment. I do not want to bore the House by naming these towns but there is, for instance, the town of Cahir in my own area which is an expanding town. Although there is quite a big population there, the town is treated as a county village. That is unfair. Both the towns of Tipperary and Carrick-on-Suir have urban councils. Surely on the basis of the same population trend the people of the town of Cahir should have an urban council. The town of Shannon was the only breakthrough we made when we gave them the status of town commissionership. There are many towns in this country that could and should aspire to that. It is an extension of local democracy. A review of the situation should be completed before elections on false boundaries are held. The false boundaries are not a problem created by any Government but by the development in counties and towns by way of housing, industry and so on. That is very important.
A second extremely important matter is the question of the financing of local authorities. I am sure that both Senator O'Toole and yourself will agree with me on this: as one who has been a member of a local authority for 16 or 17 years I have found that since the abolition of domestic rates and since the High Court decision on the PLV, local authorities are finding themselves in the dilemma of not being able to finance themselves and without power to decide on what to do or how to collect the money.
My own county council have a budget of £19 million to run their business. The county itself can raise something like £5 million of that. If the members of the council had the power to raise that £5 million they would reduce it to £1 million because members of authorities have not faced up to the responsibilities that Ministers have put on them. We have fobbed it off on to county managers to make the odious decisions that we are afraid to stand over and we have done that in the interest of local democracy. When we last gave power to local authorities in respect of charges, it was said that suddenly we were handing over all the powers to county managers. The reason that was done was that local authority members, and they had a lot of power still in regard to the framing of the charges, the scale of the charges and how they would apply them, did not want to do anything because they were afraid there was a local election coming up this year and they all wanted to vote against the charges and left it to the manager.
Members of local authorities who are looking for powers, must be able to exercise these powers correctly and have the courage to do so. One of the ways you can do that is to have the financing of local authorities in the hands of the local authority members. If we are depending on central funds to finance local authorities we can forget about local democracy because Governments of any shade of opinion, whoever they are, can then actually dictate to you the policy you should adopt in a particular area.
We have seen evidence of this in recent times by way of our total dependence on road grants. We are told by central Government that because they are paying the 100 per cent grant to the county councils specific parts of roads must be done. We have no function in the decision as to where the money is being spent in our county. We are told that we cannot expect to have a role or a function simply because the State are picking up the tab. The sooner we move away from central funding of local authorities and put it back into the area of elected members, the better.
People will not be anxious to pay for services if local authorities have not the courage to strike a rate and if the Government are going to pick up the tab. That is what puts the area of financing in second place on my list of reasons for postponement. We will have to grapple. Some excellent suggestions have come from Senator Fallon about how local authorities can be financed. We certainly will have to look at the kind of people we give a service to, whether they are householders, business people or farmers. Anybody in a county or urban authority area who avails of a service from that authority should contribute in some way towards the financing of that authority and not be totally dependent on the State which is almost totally dependent on borrowing or on the PAYE sector. That is the area we should be moving in, and even if it takes 12 months or two years to do this, it is the way we should proceed. That is a responsibility we have as legislators and we will have a part to play in the framing of that legislation and thereby ensure that if a proper funding system is agreed between us it would be acceptable generally. Then we can have an election and possibly that election will be fought on whether one agrees with that particular type of funding. That is a good area for debate. Whoever happens to be in Opposition then could, if they so wished, say to the Government of the day that people should not have to pay for local services. If one believes in that argument, one does not believe in local democracy, in local powers or in any of the powers we think we have but which are being taken away from us every day. We have bodies like An Taisce complaining about the use of section 4. We have all sorts of people saying we should have no hand in planning. We have all sorts of people saying we should have no part in the allocation of houses or even asking people to be considered for approval for re-housing, which is one of the basic rights of a housing authority.
We have members of local authorities who have not come to grips with the problem of itinerants. In spite of generous funds from the Department of the Environment, county council members by and large have run away from the problem of looking after disadvantaged people. Itinerants are disadvantaged and have been disadvantaged by the settled community. There are large sums of money available from the Department of the Environment for council members to grasp the nettle and do something in justice for the underprivileged section of our community, especially when those unsettled people are making an effort themselves to be integrated into the community. Many of them are sending their children to school and clothing them properly and they are prepared to settle down. I have no time for the new generation of itinerants who come and go, make a fast buck and do not want to stay in anybody's county for longer than they can make money. There is no question of trying to deal with those because they are not genuine itinerants who want to be settled. There are genuine itinerants who want to be settled. Local representatives of all parties tend to pander to settled communities because that is where the votes are. That is running away from responsibility.
The greatest possible power should be vested in local authorities and the county manager's powers should not supersede them. The Managerial Act should be looked at to ensure that members have a voice and are consulted in formulating policy or decisions about housing.
The third item mentioned was the question of whether the holding of EEC elections on the same day as local elections should have any bearing on whether we are ready for a local election or whether we will have the review completed in time. It is a sad reflection on this country if that is to be the guideline as to whether people come out to vote for the EEC elections. That would be a tragedy and if Fianna Fáil are using that as one of the arguments, it is regrettable.
It is the reality.
It is regrettable that Fianna Fáil followers are so little committed to the European movement and the EEC that the party opposite are dependent on local authority elections to bring the electorate out. Maybe it is because Fianna Fáil are members of a very minority group in Europe, that they are irrelevant anyway. Certainly we will have the enthusiasm, whether the elections are held together or otherwise, to bring out our people because we believe it is important for all of the people to be represented in the European Parliament.
The Senator will find it difficult to bring his people out.
It is important for all of us to be represented in the European Parliament. We should bring our electorate out to do that, particularly now as the European Parliament will be making decisions about super-levies and so on, matters that affect the lives of all of us. The question of the incomes of many people working in the milk processing industry, for instance, should be a reason for bringing people out to vote in the European Parliament elections. I do not think we should have any reason to prop up that election. It will stand on its own feet. As Senator McDonald said, if the people do not turn out to vote for that reason, it would be a reflection on us as a nation who galloped headlong into the European Parliament on foot of the terms that were put to us. We were on our knees asking for membership. We did not even ask to have the conditions changed. We would all change them now. Our party were a minority at that time and we were not happy about the terms of accession. Even the Greeks have had a revision of their membership.
These are the issues that will be fought in the European Parliament. That is an important item in itself and hardly needs the prop of local elections for a good turn out.
Regarding the turnout at elections, I suggest that Sunday voting is something we should seriously look at. Elections should not have the effect of disrupting the business life of the whole country as well as the educational life of the children who have to forfeit their day at school. In addition, there are all the people who are seconded from other employment in the area of the public sector to take part in the process. We should grasp this nettle and decide once and for all that elections should and could be held on a Sunday. It would assist a major turnout. People would be coming out for other reasons on Sunday anyway — to attend church and so on. I see nothing wrong in religious terms with people going to the polling booth on Sundays. This happens all over Europe. It is regrettable that when the date was being set for the European elections, the day chosen was not a Sunday. We should consider the advantages of Sunday voting for any election. Surely if the local GAA convention can be held on a Sunday and all the members turn out to vote, no one will suggest that there is anything wrong with that on religious grounds. If people are fulfilling their moral obligation to vote for their local representative on a Sunday, are they not carrying out the work of God, too?
People listen to the voice of the Church at times in making up their minds on how to vote. It is the Church's right to make its views known. Certainly, I see nothing wrong from the religious viewpoint with voting on a Sunday. I would ask the Minister of State to bear that in mind when setting future dates for elections. The fact that we are holding a referendum in relation to the EEC is confusing enough. In 1979, in urban areas particularly, the number of spoiled votes in the elections were fairly considerable. One of the reasons for this was that there were three different coloured ballot papers, three different sets of candidates, some of them duplicated on all of them — urban council elections, county council elections and European elections. We have to admire the capabilities of the electorate to grapple with the total confusion. We will have another opportunity in this House to discuss European elections later. The situation will be changed slightly because there will be a new law about the list system and otherwise. That will create confusion. There is the question of whether the list of substitute candidates will be on the back of the ballot paper or in the polling station. If it is on the back of the ballot paper and somebody from a particular county sees his or her favourite son or daughter on the substitute list, and puts a mark in front of that name while forgetting to vote for the primary candidate, what sort of outcome would we have? I am suggesting to the Minister that when he is formulating a ballot paper he might have a look at this. It is a departure for us but the list system has been acceptable within Europe for a long time. For us it will be a welcome change. It is important that people's names are before the electorate but this might cause confusion in the minds of the electorate as to who they are voting for and how they should vote. That will cause sufficient confusion on one day without running local elections on the same day for three or four different statutory authorities in the same electoral area, as happened in 1979.
I have no reason to believe that the postponement of this is going to create any problem for anybody. Possibly I am being unfair. There are people in all our parties who are not members of local authorities but who aspire to become members. Of course, they would welcome an election and the sooner the better for them because they want to oust some of those occupying seats which the aspirants consider should be theirs. We must admire aspiring candidates for their enthusiasm in this regard. They will experience some disillusionment if and when they become members of local authorities because there is a lot of hard work attached to such membership. In addition, the work is grossly underpaid and all members of the local authorities, in spite of the way the media treat them, are voluntary members of society who give up their day's work with a disregard for their own businesses. They give their time, without payment, to attend local authority meetings, sub-committee meetings and VEC meetings, night and day, at times, and none of the members has made any money out of it. Any compensation they get is by way of a contribution towards their expenses legitimately incurred during the term in which they serve as members. That is an area that should be looked at.
Recently I welcomed the increase in subsistence for voluntary members of local authorities but that increase would not be in line at all with the way travel and food costs have escalated.
Senator McDonald has referred to the possibility of assisting members of local authorities by way of some kind of a postage facility whereby they could correspond with the electorate as easily as members of the Oireachtas do. We are in a privileged situation and I am sure that Senators, in particular, agree that members of local authorities should be facilitated in this way because they in turn put quite a demand on us to try to assist them. They being our electorate, it is only natural that we should try to help them, particularly as they are key people within the areas which we represent and they are a vital part of our staying in touch with people and their problems.
Deputies may have a different view. They might assume that local authority members with a lot of other facilities might become Members of the Dáil and not just members of local authorities. There might be some ambiguity in that argument. As a local authority member myself, I would like my colleagues to have the same facilities that I have. I say that on the basis of fairness and democracy.
The Minister of State, in his address to local authority members, should look at this whole area. The amount of personal expenditure by local authority members is unbelievable in terms of telephone calls, postage and so on. The existence among the media of an anti-local authority member attitude is regrettable in terms of democracy. It leads people to vote for parties who have no regard whatsoever for democracy. Reference has been made to this already and it was ruled by the Chair to be out of order but I am concerned that people who purport to represent people and get votes to do that and become community representatives suddenly misrepresent that vote as a vote standing for something else. That is a travesty of justice. It is certainly dangerous for democracy. We as a Government and as members associated with the Oireachtas will have to look seriously at the sincerity of people who purport to be representing communities and getting votes to do so and still using the receipt of those votes as a substantial approval for their other actions, for the taking of human life and their lack of condemnation of doing so.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Cathaoirleach has already ruled on that as you commenced by saying but now you are going on to make a speech about it.
With respect, I was talking about the protection of local democracy. If we are talking about the reorganisation of local government that is what we should do. I am telling you that if we do not do it and give the proper power to local authority members, democracy could be in danger. We can see evidence of it already. That was the only comparison I was drawing with the remarks made by Senator Fallon. I did not name specific Members in this House. It was a pity that was done. Neither did I name specific organisations. I had an opportunity recently of passing the condolences of this House in respect of a situation that arose from the actions of some of these people. I was not dealing with that subject so I was abiding by the ruling but I was being very careful to ensure that local democracy as we understand it will prevail. We can do it by reorganising local government and, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, your party have been in power for so long in this country that you have forgotten that during that time, the elections were postponed 13 times for no reason except the political reasons you talk about.
That is not true.
I would not expect the Senator to say anything else. I have given systematically the legitimate reasons for the local government elections being postponed, first, on the basis of boundary and, secondly, financing. I would place a large responsibility then on local authority members to exercise the powers I hope this review will give them, and whether that means consultation with any of the co-ordinating bodies like the Local Authority Members' Association or the General Council of Committees of Agriculture or the Municipal Authorities of Ireland or the Council for the European Movement or indeed any of our colleagues in Europe who have different systems of both financing and election of local authority members, we should proceed with the fullest possible investigation of all that before we make a final decision as to when these elections will be held. I would not rule out further postponement if the review is not finished.
Of course not.
I was so sure that it was almost finished that I had my selection conferences ready to take on the Opposition. I did not have that pleasure yet, and the sooner I get that pleasure the better, because there is a lot of satisfaction about having an election at local level when you can take on people on a person-to-person basis down there without cutting their throats about national politics which mean nothing at local level. We are all going in the one direction. I am glad it is a sort of democratic process.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
We are not.
Is the Chair not going the way of the democratic process? You really disappoint me. You are a gracious lady in the Chair and I am sorry to hear that you are not going along in the same democratic process. I always thought you were. We have often had discussions outside the House and we agreed on many things. We are going in the same direction. I hope you agree that if both of us are re-elected we will progress along those lines. I would be disappointed if you did anything else. I am sure your remark was jocose. I will scrap it from my record. Your sister who is in my constituency would not say that. She is also a local authority member and highly respected like yourself. She is a democrat and goes along those particular lines. I think I have reprimanded you enough now to leave it at that.
This is a genuine motion. My name is appended to it and I formally second it if that is necessary; I see absolutely no reason for it. My colleague Senator Daly will have claimed a lot of credit for reflecting the views of local authority members throughout the country. As an elected Senator he is right to reflect the views of his electorate and of your electorate. I must accept that the people opposite were genuinely concerned. I look forward to the day when the elections will be held. We have only 26 or 27 county councils in the country. They rarely change more than a seat or two at the most. All it could mean in fact is a different chairman.
People do not forget.
If the Opposition are expecting a widespread defeat of the Government, they will be disappointed. In any case we will have the opportunity in the European elections of finding out where in fact the support is. I hope Members of this House or of the other House who have this thing about opinion polls and all that will not get into that area in this debate. The opinion polls are not as good as you might have thought they were. I know you were disappointed with the results when they did not suit you, but do not depend on that kind of reason for having an election or for not having one. The only opinion poll is the people at the ballot box.
The same as in the Dublin by-election when there was no such factor as confusion by way of different ballot papers.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator Ferris without interruption, please.
It would be more appropriate to continue elsewhere the kind of discussion Senator O'Toole and I are having. I commend the Minister for coming into the House and giving his reasons for the delay. I commend him also for dealing with the Local Authority Members' Association, who are a very important body. The other bodies deal with the councils as such. We must look after local democracy, extend it to municipal authorities, extend it to town commissioners and so on. Let us not simply go for a regional kind of thing because it just is not representative of people. We have examples of health boards and other areas like that where you are getting further away from the people you represent. The closer you can get to people the more you can reflect their opinion, and if we can do that in this kind of reform we will have given local authority and its members a very good service. As legislators that should be our responsibility.
Since late summer it was well known and generally accepted that there was not alone indecision but conflict in the Government with regard to the holding of the local elections in 1984. It is also a well-known fact that the Minister for the Environment asked his party colleagues at one stage to prepare for the local elections, but in the aftermath of the Dublin by-election reality set in as to what would happen if the local government elections were held in 1984. Let us not cod ourselves about that. If our party were in Government at this stage we would ensure a proper turnout for the European elections. These are very important elections at a time of such critical negotiation. It is still our duty to bring the people out to vote in these elections so that our hand can be strengthened in Europe. If there is a low poll, what could we expect our European partners to think? If we were in Government and we were introducing this motion today I could envisage what the people opposite would be saying to us. I know that the Taoiseach is a committed European and that he was anxious that local elections be held at the time of the European elections, in which event they would not cost anything extra to hold. If they are held the following year, which I doubt — unless we have a general election in the meantime — it will cost over £1 million.
I have been a member of a local authority since 1967. Councillors have their fingers on the pulse, especially in rural Ireland. I know of their ability at local level to get local support. It is ridiculous to offer the excuse that these elections have been postponed until the proper reforms have been introduced and I am adding my voice of opposition to the order now before the House. I note that the Minister's very low key tone in his introduction was on a par with the excuses offered by the Government for postponement of the local elections.
Local government reform is desirable and necessary. I am a member of one all-party committee in this House and I know it will take years before a proper structure for local government reform can be introduced and put in motion. I can guarantee this House and the people of this country that local elections will be held well in advance of the reforms and the structures we are about to set up. You cannot change the structure quickly. It took from eight to the best part of 20 years to bring in reforms and changes in countries such as France and Denmark.
I wonder is the Minister suggesting that county councils, urban councils and corporations are going to be abolished. I do not believe they will. Even if local elections were held I do not think the structures being set up will change that part of it: I think it is at local community level that the changes will come. Senator Ferris mentioned boundaries but it is nothing new to change boundaries. Boundaries have been changed and are being changed by local authorities. Urban district council boundaries are being extended. There are two towns in my own county where they are about to extend the local boundaries.
I believe the real reason for the postponement of the local government elections is the fact that the Government are afraid to knock on people's doors. I fully believe that the people would welcome the opportunity to express their feelings, both on the doorstep and in the ballot box.
In his speech the Minister mentioned the abolition of domestic rates. This question is popping up very often. As a member of a local authority I know it was a Coalition Government who introduced the phased abolition of domestic rates and in their manifesto in 1977 Fianna Fáil agreed to abolish them entirely. It was described as a penal tax and everybody agreed with that. Now we have the abolition of rates on agricultural land. The sector which is left carrying the can as far as rates are concerned is the commercial sector. With the shortfall in domestic and agricultural rates the commercial sector is being overburdened to such a degree that it will soon crumble. It is my honest belief that it is morally wrong to rate the commercial sector so heavily when at the same time that is the sector that will also be paying the charges for services. Public houses will have metered water rates, on a par with their house rates, commercial rates and all the other charges for refuse collection, extensions and so on. They also have to contend with tax, VAT, PRSI and income tax.
Reference has been made to the local authorities. In reality there is a shortfall in money and in services and roads are deteriorating. I am saddened and alarmed that Galway County Council may have to dismiss 60 of its work force. The Minister introduced legislation in this House which we rightly opposed because when rates were abolished it was guaranteed to the local authorities that the county councils would be reimbursed from the Exchequer in respect of the amount of rate that would be collected. The situation is that .08 per cent of an increase has been granted to local authorities this year. The legislation which was introduced in this House and which we oppose means in effect that the manager and the members of the local authority must collect the balance or else services will deteriorate or staff will be laid off. This is an on-going situation. Next year nobody knows what will be the minus percentage. It depends on how much money the county manager has the power to squeeze out of the local population in the county council area, urban district area or corporation area.
The opposition to these charges is due to the fact that when rates were abolished VAT rates were increased to an amount to cover the shortfall created by the abolition of rates. They have increased rapidly over the past number of years to an astronomical 35 per cent and people feel they have paid enough. They are more than paying for these services.
I can assure members of the Government that when the estimates for the county councils are produced some members of the Government — who are members of local authorities — will oppose increases in rates. Yet they walked through the lobbies in the Dáil to vote through the Minister's Bill which gave the manager power to increase these charges over the heads of the county council. We talk about local government reform and the giving back of autonomy to county councils and members of local county councils, yet here with one stroke of the pen the Minister for the Environment can take the power from the county councillors and hand it to the county manager.
That is not true.
It is true. I will cite an instance. It was brought to my attention that a man who owned flatlets for rental in a major town in County Meath was faced with an astronomical bill for water rates — £70 per flatlet, and there were 20 or 30 flatlets. I did not remember it going through the county council but I was told that the manager now has the power to impose the charge. The local authority are composed of public representatives elected to the county council. They ran the county councils during the years and made quite a good job of it. The stage came when all the money was channelled into central Government funds. It went up like a flood and is coming back down in a trickle.
I gladly support Senator O'Toole in opposing this Bill. It was introduced because the Government are afraid to face the people. Perhaps we will have double elections the following year: we may have the general election and the county council elections on the one day.
As a member of a local authority, I would like to give a bouquet to the county councils. During the recent storm there were many dangerous roads with fallen trees and local authority staffs did a tremendous job. I would like to record in this House that we appreciate that they were out on Sundays, at night time and early in the mornings gritting roads, removing dangerous trees and so on. The county council workers, with the members of the fire brigade, ESB and telephone crews, all did a tremendous job, and we appreciate their work.
I welcome the opportunity to say some words about this matter of local democracy and in reference to the subject whether there will be an election sooner rather than later. I will start by stressing the importance of restructuring local democracy which far outweighs any timing of an election. At the same time, it would be a tragedy if that election were postponed to the extent that people felt that they were being disenfranchised or, secondly, if as a result of all these considerations we find yet again the central parties, in particular the Government parties, are only scratching at what is a most important and significant issue.
I have thought for some time that not only the large political parties in this country and elsewhere but also the central institutions of the State are terrified of local community democracy, of handing back power to the people. We have only to see what has happened since 1968. In 1968 the French students went on to the streets in the Paris Revolution. They were saying: "We are anti-authoritarian." In some sort of clumsy way they were saying: "Give us back power to make decisions which are important to us in the sphere of our own lives." They got the first message across but they failed in the second because they had not a clear idea of how the institutions might be structured.
In the early part of the last decade the great catch cry throughout Europe was "participation." There were all sorts of participation. There were various people on boards of management who had never been on them before in their lives. Students were sitting beside professors in university but as we can see 15 years later very little has changed. The institutional structures have been to a large extent reformed. The wild horses that once got out of the shafts have been reined in and brought back into them, the bit safely between their teeth. Here we are discussing the need for local government reform with a view to giving people back their right to make choices in a democratic fashion in the communities in which they live. Gandhi was perhaps the earliest exponent of this philosophy in this century. He emphasised that in his view poverty, inequality and exploitation could only be ended by "a re-organisation of society in which village life will predominate": in our terms that is local community life. According to him real socialism could only be achieved through the people's own initiative — and some Senators who have spoken before me have stressed this point. It is no good central Government handing out the right to participate if power does not go with it. It is not good central Government handing out goodies if it is central Government who determine how they will be spent. What is important is that we return to the people in the community in which they live the economic and political power to do effective things in relation to the sort of society in which they wish to exist and to relate what happened in one community to the overall strategy for the sake of regional and national good.
This implies that the impoverished communities must get a larger share of the cake and the privileged a lesser share. What we are making an appeal for is a building of society from bottom up rather than from top down. It is the change in shape from a pyramid to a wheel. We are not talking about removing the centre, but we are talking about redefining it so that we think in terms of the axle of a wheel, small and relevant and relating it along the spokes to its various parts.
In order to try to promote this idea as a political philosophy and being very concerned with the need to redistribute power I put before Senators that they should look to Northern Ireland where because of the conflict many people have become very concerned about this issue. Only as recently as this year a lot of thought has gone into the whole idea of community education as one means of making people more aware of their own community and about what is needed. In a deliberately brief address I will mention a few points which I think might be helpful in restoring democracy to the people and on the understanding that with the attempts to restore democracy there must be economic power to make their participation effective. Participation must cease to be a sop to frustration and must start to become the means to making effective decisions where we live.
First of all, in every sphere of our endeavour we should acknowledge that there is an institutional input, that there is a consumer need which needs to be expressed in the input and also the operatives. I have mentioned here in this House before that in the context of semi-State bodies or State run bodies or in the context of those enterprises which are controlled by capital located outside of this country, it is essential that those three links in any enterprise be acknowledged and that they be given effective power. These are representation from the consumer, representation from the operatives and representation of institutional interests — the tripartite committee system.
The second point I should like to make is that we should have much more emphasis laid on the election of representatives for small tenants' associations by statute, that the representatives would form small local councils and that there should be an election more frequently than heretofore so that there could be a rapid turnover and only those playing an effective role would be retained as part of the local council. There is no point in having a local council unless the citizen is aware of what is going on in the community in which he lives and unless power is returned to that community.
The third point is that we should restore to society the concept of the guild — the health guild, the education guild, the ecology guild, the local enterprise guild and so on. I will take the health guild as an example. If by statute one was obliged in one's local community to bring together even once a year all the voluntary and statutory bodies relating to matters of health promotion and the cure and prevention of disease at least they would be aware of each other's existence and the local community would be aware of the network of agencies that are available as supports if and when they are needed. Furthermore, one could begin to debate at a reasonable level those issues relating to prevention of disease on the one hand and the promotion of health on the other, with all the radical implications that the latter in particular has, so that the local community would not only become aware but would become informed. They would then know what questions to ask, what was required and where it could be obtained in order to promote a much more serious and a much more immediate response to anything that appeared to be misplaced in the community.
Is it not time that people living in communities felt some obligation to meet once or twice a year to discuss matters openly which are of concern to them? For example, the use of resources, the financing of the community, the integration of educational facilities and the use, misuse or non-use of those educational facilities. The same would apply in the areas of health and in the other fields of endeavour which comprise community life and activity.
In conjunction with these things, one would urge very strongly the need for the reinforcement of community advice bureaux throughout the country with adequate library and audio-video cassette services so that people could determine what aid they are entitled to without having to put the unfortunate, overworked centrally located politician under much pressure whereby he is persuaded and he, in turn, persuades that things which are not within the law may possibly be obtainable. We should either have what is within the law to obtain or it should be quite clear that we cannot have it. If we think that is unfair then the role of the centrally placed politician is to have that law changed in the Oireachtas. The use of referenda — we have heard reference to that today — has been extensive in Europe at local community level not only to determine election results and boundaries but also to vote on issues of importance in the communities concerned.
I make a plea for consideration of a new system of taxation, because the point has been made here this afternoon — and I support it fully — that we must restore to our people the feeling that they have a right to determine their own way of living in their community and also that they have the power to do it. It will remain idealistic chat unless we give them that power. I suggest, as I did before, that the tax system be restructured so that out of one tax, which would have to encompass the various elements on which we are taxed, a certain percentage would go to central government, a certain percentage would go to the region, a certain percentage would be returned locally and another percentage would be left over so that central government could move funds from privileged communities to deprived communities. I will give an example, and as I am not an economist I stress that it is only an example. If 10 per cent of the tax of the four million people living in this island went to central government, 20 per cent went to regional government and 40 per cent went to local government, there would be 30 per cent left over which could be used as a transfer from the privileged to the deprived. The important thing is that with regard to the 40 per cent allocated locally, plus the proportion which was appropriate in relation to the 30 per cent left over, it would be for the local community to decide on its priorities within the context of regional and national strategy.
In his opening statement the Minister said that the purpose of the Order was to postpone the elections, and he went into various reasons why these elections should be postponed. He was suggesting that the reason was that there was a need for the restructuring of local authorities throughout the country and that this restructuring would have to take place as a result of the growth in population in certain areas and the redefinition of areas which need redefinition. That is not the point of this order. The point of this order is to make certain that the local government members throughout the country who belong to the Coalition parties do not have to face the people. They are afraid that they will lose control of certain local authorities, and they are equally afraid that, because of the local involvement mentioned by Senator Robb, of groups such as The Workers' Party and Sinn Féin they will take away a certain amount of the support that had traditionally gone to one or other of the Coalition parties. He brings up the old shibboleths of the need for reorganisation.
In 1969 the Buchanan Report dealing with regional organisation came out, and the main element of that report has never been implemented. In 1976 there was a further study, but all the studies that have been going on since 1969 have failed, and the problems being put forward here today have arisen.
There is no doubt that there are problems in local government at present. The Minister made a mistake in his speech by suggesting that it was because of the withdrawal of rates in 1977 that these problems have arisen. One must look at the facts about the withdrawal of rates in 1977. It was stated specifically that in the overall taxation system that was to be brought in there would be an increase in general taxation to provide for the loss of rates. If one looks at the changes in taxation since 1977 to date the amount of gross domestic product that goes into central government has increased from 31 per cent, approximately, in 1977 to 41 per cent. In other words, the State has been taking more and more from the people who were originally paying rates and taxes.
The bulk of taxation has fallen on lower income groups. The difficulty with the lower income groups prior to 1977 was that they were paying their rates irrespective of their incomes, because the properties they lived in were rated irrespective of income. Since 1977 some people think rates have gone from houses and other property in general. But rates still exist. Every house in this country is still rated but what is not happening at local level at present is that the amount of rates per house is not being returned by the State to the local authorities.
Interestingly enough, this year the central government have granted an increase for central government services of 8 per cent at a time when inflation is supposed to be 10 per cent. The increase to two local authorities is 0.8 per cent. There is no point in the Minister coming into this House and trying to fool people by suggesting that 1977 was the cause of the problems we have. This year they are taking 8 per cent more to run central government and they are only allowing 0.8 per cent to local authorities.
Of course, local authorities have other problems. Now we have the problem that even though the Minister of State says he wants to give autonomy back to the local authorities, he has withdrawn it from them by giving in last year's Bill the right to the county managers to assess water charges or whatever charges managers seem to think appropriate to the running of the counties in a particular year. That is a total negation of the right of a local authority, because it gives the county manager increased power.
It has been stated by Coalition Members that we were going to bring in charges. We had in The Way Forward a suggestion that we would introduce charges to top up, where necessary, allocations from central government. The difference now is that the central government are giving only 0.8 per cent at a time when inflation is running at 10 per cent. There is absolutely no way that a county can be run at present.
In Kilkenny — and I can only say what happens in Kilkenny — we have a proposal from our county manager to increase rates on business people by 10 per cent this year. There was not a business in Kilkenny which made money last year. We were told by both the manager and by Government spokesmen that you can set off your rates against your tax. You can only set off your rates against your tax if you make profit, and that did not happen in Kilkenny. Of course, you have people who claim they cannot pay rates. A businessman can say that, and he will get a little help, but if that business is ever sold the rates that were owed and were not paid in a difficult time would have to be paid at the time the business is sold. So there is no way a businessman can get out of paying rates. He can have payment put back several times but eventually the amount due will be paid either by the businessman himself or by his successors.
I think Senator Robb is a little out of touch with what is happening in local government in Ireland if he thinks that anybody could get elected to a county council or a corporation without meeting his local community council, his local tenants' association, his local residents' association on a very regular basis.
From the point of view of bringing power back to the people, the people know very well the people who are working in their area at local level, and the local councillor, whether he be a corporation member or a county councillor, is as close to his people as anybody in the community could be. The parallel may be different in the sense that in Britain, certainly since councils were regionalised, councillors in that system have lost touch with their constituents because they made the areas too big. Possibly in our proposed restructuring, even though it is stated that it will give more autonomy to local groups, the possibility is that you will see the elimination of small councils, of urban councils, and an amalgamation of these into regional councils. That should not be allowed to happen, and if the Minister intends this I think it will create the problems that have been suggested by Senator Robb.
There is no doubt that we do need some co-ordination at regional level. The regional development organisations have played a major role in attempting to bring about a regional policy which would not cut across local government but which would give to the regions a better base for attracting co-ordinating bodies to deal with particular regions rather than a proliferation of countrywide bodies.
I will come back to Kilkenny. In passing, the Minister's speech referred to the effects of the Supreme Court judgment on local authority finances. In Kilkenny we start off with a revenue deficit this year of £2.6 million, of which £1 million has to do with the decision of the Supreme Court, which was a proper decision, that the poor law valuation system was unconstitutional. But it leaves Kilkenny with a problem of trying to find £1 million which should have come from the farmers of the county or the Government. Since the farmers, according to the Supreme Court, are not liable for that £1 million the Government will have to come up with the £1 million, or else the servicing of that £1 million will cripple the council over the next number of years.
The major problem we have in Kilkenny is that we have a sewerage scheme and a water scheme to be built and we know that they will cost, say, £2 million, but we do not know from year to year how much money we will get until the Government allocation is made. Nobody in the world would go and prepare a £3 million scheme except for a local authority, involving planning and the implementation of the scheme, and not know from year to year what money they were going to get to run it. There would have to be some sort of a multiannual allocation made so that from the beginning when a scheme is being prepared the council will know that in year one they will get a percentage, in year two they will get a percentage and in year three they will get a percentage. Councils have been working on an ad hoc basis: they run out of money towards the end of a particular year and they have to wait. Alternatively, they can go to the bank, and of course a motion comes through in the council that borrowing be increased by X hundreds of thousands, and that goes through. That is not the way local authorities should be financed. It is a load of rubbish for the councillors who have to sit down and wait and say “Well, what are we getting from the Government?” and they do not know.
This year in Kilkenny we will not repair a county road unless we get extra funds. We will increase our sewerage charges by £25 which will mean that everybody in County Kilkenny will pay £75 in charges. Last year in Kilkenny city everybody was levied with a £75 charge and, fair enough, 65 per cent of them on 1 January had paid their charges.
Many people are going around telling other people not to pay their charges. I would ask those people that before they say "do not pay" they should ask if there are any alternatives, to look at the needs and then go back to the central Government and tell them that they are not giving enough money. It is then up to the central Government to say: "Right, we will give you an extra million so your charges will not have to go up by so much".
There is no county which is not faced this year with having to lay off council workers. Many people do not think that county council employees work very hard, but if one looks at the country and takes a proper perspective of it, have a look at the country now as against 20 years ago, nobody could say that this country is not better served in terms of water, sewerage, housing and roads than most other countries. This did not happen by council employees not working. Council employees work as hard as any other group in the country, but now they are finding they do not have the opportunities that they had in the past for promotion and security in their jobs.
One of the things that we keep fighting about in local authorities is that the first person who will be dropped from the payroll is the man working on the side of the road. We find it very hard to get rid of the administrators — one of the problems with the country is that we have so many administrators and not enough technical people or people to do the jobs on the ground. Our county development scheme system has been turned into a ludicrous but expensive mess because they are not getting the funds needed in each area. The county development teams could play a vital role in industrial and community development in general but they are not getting the funds.
We must ensure — and we will be voting against this motion — that the elections take place this year. I totally agree that re-organisation is needed in local authorities. We have the ludicrous situation in Kilkenny that we have to pay the health board £490,000 for services under the Social Welfare Acts. We have to pay a contribution to ACOT; we have to pay a contribution to SERTO; we have to pay a contribution to SERDO; we have to pay a contribution to the VEC. Why do the Department of Education not fund the VEC? Why do the Department of Agriculture not fund ACOT? Why do the Department of Social Welfare not fund the SWA?
There are funds available but they are being drawn away. The extra 0.8 per cent that we are getting this year over last year plus another 2 per cent, would pay all these charges. We could eliminate payment to the outside bodies and we would not have to go to our people and look for £75 from each in charges and a 10 per cent increase in rates at a time when business people have not got any money.
The basic principle of local government is that local people get sufficient funds to run their own affairs. Somebody said that in America you had the American co-ordination system, which seems to be coming in here, by which we pay our bills with your money. The local authorities want to pay their own bills with their own money but at present they are being starved of money and cannot pay any bill at all. We have a situation which at local authority level causes increasing concern that the management system is taking over. In many counties we have excellent county managers, but we have to look at the system which provides county managers.
County managers are dealing with budgets which are enormous. The budget in Kilkenny is £12,862,000. We have a system of appointments of county managers through which every county manager is appointed, from within the local government system. There is not one county manager in the country who has not come from the local government system. Surely there must be people other than those who have come through either central or local government who would be very well capable of running a major undertaking such as a county council, with so many facets of business to be looked after. I always had the feeling that the Local Appointments Commission, generally speaking, do not appoint people who have not come through the local or central government systems on these bodies. When one goes for promotion you will probably find the same people interviewing the same people.
Eventually they are slotted in a hole when their ages are right or when everybody else has died off.
There are specified areas in which regional development organisations have statutory powers or are set up on a statutory basis. These regional development organisations get a lot of help from the Government. However, they are not in the same boat as organisations such as the south-eastern one, which is not set up in the same manner. All regional development organisations should be dealt with on the same basis. It is ludicrous to think that a regional development organisation, because it is based in a certain area, should get different treatment from one which is in another area.
We are totally against this motion which is not being proposed for the purpose that has been laid down. As a result of the problems that have been created by this Government we are going to have lay-offs of local government workers and, a significant cut in services. Central Government will provide moneys, helped by Europe, for main roads, but county roads and lanes and the general road fabric will break down because we are not getting the funding. We will be voting against this motion not because we do not want to see a re-organisation of local government but because it is being brought in for wrong reasons.
I was not a county council member under the old rates system and therefore I had never to vote on increasing the rates. I believe it took some time to get someone to propose and second and vote for an increase in rates because it brought a certain amount of flak from the people afterwards. Councillors in those days had at least the satisfaction of being able to produce some good for the county by increasing rates. If they wanted a certain amount of work done in the county and they were told that it took so much money, they could get it and the people of the county could actually see what was taking place.
For that reason we have now found ourselves in a position which is hopeless: we carry the can but we can do absolutely nothing about it. We cannot get money and at the same time we are supposed to do the job. The last move which introduced local service charges gave a certain amount of scope to do this but not enough. It is very easy to be generous, and politicians are always generous. It is very easy to oppose charges. There are campaigns going on all over the country to oppose charges. One party in my part of the country produced a leaflet telling people not to pay charges. One paragraph states that they have already led a campaign in many places to burn the demand notes in front of county council offices.
That is a marvellous form of democracy. It is an achievement that should get that party many votes — to burn water charge notes in front of county council offices. It is very easy to take that line, it is easy to say everything has gone wrong, but in the long run it comes to the crunch: we have either the courage or the cowardice to vote for or against money to keep our county councils going.
There has been a certain amount of political talk here about why these elections are to be postponed. It is fine to say that the Government are running away from elections. I would ask anybody who is a member of a local authority "why would you inflict the punishment of being a local member on any young intelligent potential politician as things are at present"? Basically we are rubber stamps, and nothing else. Until we are given the responsibility to raise money to be able to do what is good for the country then we will continue to be rubber stamps.
The question of the roads has come up so often that I cannot help replying to it. When the car tax was abolished it was a great stroke, but, unfortunately, strokes have left us with strokes all over the place. It meant that the Road Fund went down. I have said before, and I will repeat it, that when the charges for road materials went up by more than 20 per cent, some of it by 25 per cent, I asked the assistant county engineer in Carlow, as he was then, what would be the finish of it. We were getting a 10 per cent increase, and inflation had put the price of road making materials up 26 per cent and 24 per cent. He said to me in 1980 that in three years the roads would begin to crumble. That man is now a county engineer in the west of Ireland trying to get the potholes filled.
We, the present members of county councils, are taking the flak for this as if we were responsible for the state of the roads. That has gone back, whether the Opposition like to hear it or not, to 1977 because the county councils were deprived of money. Because they were given 10 per cent when they needed 20 per cent the roads simply fell apart. That is the simple position in regard to the roads. It infuriates me at times to hear responsible politicians crying about the potholes all over the country when they should be embarrassed to mention them, knowing that it was their side of the House that caused this to happen.
The question of postponing the local elections because it might do damage to the European vote has been raised. I do not want to be used as fodder for any election. If I have to face the people of Carlow at local level I want to do so simply because there is an election taking place and because I feel that the next time around perhaps I can offer something better than I have offered at present. I am there, they come to me about potholes and so on, I cannot do a thing about it. The Government have to provide funds, and it is so simple to say: "Let the funds come from central government." All that does is that it passes the buck: you tax the people who are already overtaxed more, whereas if we could have our own tax system in the country, and our own rate of payment, at least if you were sure it would do something for you locally the people would accept it. As of now they are paying taxes, the money is disappearing into the central funds and they cannot get it back. If we rely on the central funds to do more we finish up taxing the people more and they will see less of it.
If the people do not realise the significance of the European elections and if all we do is crib that we are not getting the millions we should get and if we are prepared to see the danger of the super-levy and all the other cutbacks that might hit us, then as a nation we surely have not grown up at all. There is no justification for criticising the postponement of the elections because a smaller crowd of electors might come out. You could go to the stage when you would say that the people who vote in the European elections should get lucky bags for turning up. We must be beyond that stage in a democracy in which people realise their responsibility. I think they will realise the responsibility that lies on everybody and that they will turn out.
I agree completely that there are many small business people who are being harassed into trying to provide funds to pay rates — small public houses, small business people who are only surviving and who cannot claim back their rates as part of their tax concessions. I hope that in the review that will be coming up there will be sympathy for action given to those small business people. A lot of them provide a social service down the country. If that is done the system will have to be changed.
I think it is unfair that many smaller business people will be expected to pay the special water charge. You cannot have the two things coming together: if water and sewerage charges are part of the old rates system, in the review careful consideration should be given to the question of letting the smaller business people off, because the bigger business people can reclaim the charges through tax relief.
A member of the Opposition said that it was a very unpopular decision around the country to postpone these elections. Many things have been said here about charges county councils have to face from VECs and other bodies and because there are so many anomalies at local council level a review is so necessary that there is no point in talking about anything else. Who wants to see other people, maybe, replacing us who will be dealing with the same problems and the same anomalies? While Frank Hall had great fun at the expence of county councillors throughout the country, many county councillors are very serious about what they do. They work long hours and they lose money on the job.
Consideration should be given to the expenses that county councillors should get for phone and postage. It is all very fine for Frank Hall to treat them as gombeen men but many of them are very sincere and help the local people. I am glad that the elections are postponed. It is not because I am afraid to go before the people or that the Government are afraid to go before them. The people can see that all the shouting and criticism is not serving any great purpose. They know that money has to come from somewhere. If we want to provide services, we must provide money, and passing the buck will not do that.
I welcome the idea of postponing the elections. If I have the privilege of standing again and am re-elected, as I hope to be, I will be able to deal with things on the ground and do a better job than we have done in the last few years.
I welcome this motion before the House. What is coming across from the other side of the House is the idea that they have seemingly lost an opportunity where they could take control of all the local authorities. We know what happened in the past regarding democracy at local level in many of the local authorities.
Local authorities as we now know them have outlived their usefulness. The shift in population necessitates an urgent review not alone in the greater Dublin area but throughout the country. There is the continuing flight from the land and this has created pressures on urban areas. Galway city has expanded at an enormous rate. Every town has. It is ridiculous that some small towns have broken county boundaries and are now within the jurisdiction of an urban council and within the geographical limits of another county council. There is urgent need for a review where such anomalies and contradictions exist. It is very wise to tackle it now because we can also deal with the financial problems which every local authority has run into.
The services which the county councils and local authorities provide have changed over the years. Powers have been shed to a great extent. The first and most noticeable one was the shedding of the health authorities. County councils used to provide health services within their limitations but this was given over to the health boards. We see now the monsters which were created. Local authorities provided that service successfully in the past within the financial limits and resources available to them. The health boards provide a very extensive service. However, it is a burden on national resources. I do not understand why when that change was made the supplementary welfare allowance, which is a heavy burden on a lot of county councils, was not shed. In County Galway there is a very high dependency rate and supplementary welfare allowance has placed an enormous burden on the council and its resources. Galway County Council owes £1.8 million to the Western Health Board. Roscommon has completely paid off its debt. It would be ludicrous if one Government agency was to go to court and follow through its demand for recoupment of finance. How could Galway County Council justify not paying the money? This is one area which the Minister must consider because the county councils and local authorities do not administer it. It is just a matter of a debt which has to be paid. They are responsible for it. It is a cheap way of financing it at present but most local authorities do not have the resources to pay it. I ask the Minister, in the review, to compare the costs of providing services or improvement works under the local authority system with those of private enterprise. Take, for example, group water schemes. It would cost three times as much to provide a group water scheme under a local authority as it would when it is provided by private enterprise. While such is the case the onus is on local authorities to provide those. There is a great difficulty there. I suggest local authorities should give out more work on a contract basis. If that was the case, the limited resources that are available to local authorities could be more widely used and it would cut down on administration costs. Very often engineers have to carry out very menial tasks such as dealing with the paperwork involved and other small administative tasks while there is great demand for their skills and professional expertise in other areas within the local authorities. Local authority housing is more often than not carried out on a contractual basis and that works out very satisfactorily. The cost per unit of a local authority house in comparison with that of a private house is far greater. Are people taking advantage, then, of certain loopholes or red tape in the system? That question needs to be examined.
The question of charges has been mentioned several times by Senators. It must be appreciated that, for various reasons, and the opportunism of the period just gone by, fewer people are paying rates. This is the only local charge at present apart from charges for water and for refuse collection. Social welfare recipients of one description or another were the first to get a waiver of rates and other charges. Nobody grudges them that facility. There is a humane element within the government system, whether local or national. Charges are not just demanded regardless of the ability of the person to pay. As long as we have a caring government in power we will always have that facility.
As a local authority member, I know the pressures that there are on councillors. The inflexibility of the relationship between local authorities and central government is thrown up at us at meetings. I am talking about the block grants system that allocates finances from central government to certain stretches of national primary roadways. Local authorities have no flexibility in regard to spending that money. I am thinking of a county like Galway which probably has a greater mileage of roadways to maintain than practically any other county, with the exception of Cork, in the Twenty-six Counties. Going along the main Dublin-Galway road one can see hard shoulders being provided. These works are carried out at very great expense but it is very wasteful as the constant traffic interferes with the progress of the work. There is no real return for the money expended there. At the same time, there are other stretches of road in an absolutely dangerous condition which cannot be touched by the local authority because they cannot switch the finance to do that work. I ask the Minister to consider carefully the idea that the grants made available to local authorities may be used in a flexible way so that the local authorities would be able to spend them in the areas where they see the greatest need.
There was a proposal to set up a new road authority. A transportation committee group examined this and are now considering the idea of acquiring, as it were, powers to make plans for road improvements and take them away from local authorities. The very make-up of that study group is biased against local authorities. It would be my fear that, in order to justify their own existence, they would cast envious eyes on the whole transportation area and acquire within their own brief the area of roads now being handled by local authorities. The local authorities would have their function further reduced. Our involvement in this area, which is diminishing, would be further diminished if that was the case.
The Minister should consider seriously the whole role of the local authority member. Councillors who are Oireachtas Members, for instance, enjoy what are called in the media "the perks". They have the facilities of free postage and so on. These should be made available at the earliest possible date to local authority members. If they provide a service locally they are equally entitled to the same facilities as Oireachtas Members who work at national level.
Central government say that they are concerned in various ways for local authorities and their operation and the best way they can demonstrate that concern is to make every possible facility available to them. The question of those facilities being extended to local authority members must be favourably considered.
The question of financing has been raised on many occasions in this debate.
I think it was Senator Robb who mentioned the question of local taxation and percentages going to central government and vice versa. I hope that will never be the case here. There is disparity between the populations of different counties and if the finance available to local authorities was administered on that basis many parts of the country which are remote, isolated and thinly populated would be without any sort of road structure in a very short time. However bad the present system is with regard to the equal distribution of resources and everybody getting a fair share, I would much prefer if there was a degree of flexibility within the allocation, that it should remain.
There are many local authority areas which have imposed charges for refuse collection and for water. Local authorities in the past provided refuse collection. It was a county charge but now that there is a charge private enterprise has moved into this area as they will get a return from the service they provide. Many private concerns have taken over certain sections of towns and rural areas and are providing a refuse collection service. While there is a peculiar system of costs in local authorities, if we are to be careful of our environment we must monitor the activities of private operators providing these services. Local authorities provide dumps throughout the country. It would be too bad if these people were allowed to have a free hand and make vast profits without having some sort of control over their activities and where they dump dangerous substances. The ordinary refuse collection might not necessarily be harmful and could be dumped in many areas but where dangerous substances are involved there is great need there for monitoring. While we welcome, on the one hand, a cheaper service by private enterprise there is, in certain instances, a duty on the local authority to see to it that certain standards are maintained by those people, particularly in the disposal of certain wastes.
As regards the provision of services, particularly housing and water, health inspectors are called in. It is the function of the local authority to provide housing. The examination of applicants for housing should be within the jurisdiction of the local authority rather than the present system of calling in the assistance of health boards. In cases where pollution might be suspected the local authority should have available to them a Government agency which they could call on to have a full in-depth study carried out. In Tynagh, County Galway, there is a disused mine and Galway County Council have been requested, on various occasions, to monitor closely the possibility of pollution there. They neither have the resources nor the personnel to give adequate attention to that. In the interests of the national safety the local authority should be able to call on An Foras Forbartha or some other agency which has the necessary expertise and personnel. It is not often that we have the closure of a mine, particularly a mine in which dangerous substances had been used. The lead residue has to be monitored very carefully. The county council cannot finance adequately an in-depth study to see what the dangers might be. If it goes out of the hands of the local authority it will be a national problem. In such situations a national agency should be available to the local authority. The costs of such inquiries, studies or surveys should not be borne by the local authority but by the Government. That should also be the case where valuable fish resources might be damaged by arterial drainage or main drainage schemes, as is often the case. There should be a national agency to outline the position and give the facts in an unbiased way.
I welcome the motion. It gives me pleasure to support it. We are not afraid to face the electorate. Anybody who has served on a local authority and has carried out the work over the years can always face the electorate. National politics do not arise in local authority elections so that I do not know why the Opposition are blowing so much about having the elections now.
It was not my intention to contribute to this debate. I have been inspired to do so from listening to the contributions of my colleagues. The contributions I listened to were positive and negative. There were some very positive contributions. None more so than the contribution of Senator Robb. There were aspects of his contribution that I endorse very much. It is important that we recognise that some of the matters he referred to are deserving of the most serious consideration. In relation to another matter which I will refer to later, I will develop the impetus that he gave to the desirability of transferring resources from privileged areas to less well off areas.
The negative contributions proved the greatest incentive for me to speak. As far as I am concerned, two of them came from the other side. There is either misrepresentation, which I hesitate to say there is or a misconception of the role of the elected council and the elected body of councils in relation to the powers of a county manager in deciding and directing the affairs of a county council or local authority.
I do not think I should let the opportunity go without challenging these misconceptions and outlining what I feel is the true and accurate situation as provided in the legislation in relation to the powers of the elected members as against the powers of county managers. I support the motion. Why should I or anyone logically do otherwise than support this motion recognising as we do that there is a wide-ranging review taking place at present within the Department of the Environment in relation to the whole system of local government? In addition to that in recent times the need to look at the whole structure of the financing of local government has become apparent. That is being looked at. We have the review going on in relation to the structure, outline and representation at local authority level. We also have the vexed question — it is a very broad and sensitive one as well — of the financing of local authority activities. Where is the logic, when these reviews are taking place and no conclusions have been reached, of holding an election in the middle of the year? Therefore, the logical and sensible thing to do is as the Minister is proposing, to postpone the local elections until these reviews are complete. It is hoped that these reviews will be completed within a year and once they are and once we have decided as a nation where we are going in relation to the structure of local government and in relation to the financing of local government, let us then hold the local elections and elect our local authorities.
The Minister, in the course of his speech, referred to the changes that have taken place in the population and to the need to have representation on local bodies. There is the likelihood then of boundary changes being made. If these changes take place we would be entering into a controversial area but that is inevitable, if democracy is to be democracy in the sense that you have to have equal representation on local bodies.
There is also the question of new towns and expanding towns. In my county it took tremendous effort for many years to get representation in the form of Town Commissioners for Shannon town. This is the second largest town in County Clare and is substantially larger than either Kilkee or Kilrush, both of which have local authority status. There is a need to balance the situation and then to elect new local authorities.
Senator Lynch spoke about the cost of holding the European elections. He gave the figure of £1 million, which is fair enough. The European elections and the issues involved therein are important and serious enough not to have a clear understanding and debate in relation to the European elections; first, on the question of representation within Europe and, secondly, on the role of our representatives there. Here I will return to the observation made by Senator Robb when he referred to the desirability of and the necessity for transferring resources from the privileged areas to the less-privileged areas.
We can all recall that the whole concept of Europe was based on the building of this great grouping of nations representing a market of 300 million people, free movement of capital, of labour and of resources within them, protective barriers against all outsiders but, more important, using the resources of the areas that are privileged to develop the less well-off regions within the EEC. That was a great concept, and many of us here campaigned to have ourselves a part of that unit. Yet that great ideal seems to have been lost; it seems no longer to have the relevance that it had eight, ten, 12, 15 years ago. Therefore, in regard to the need to transfer resources from the privileged areas to the less well-off areas, we have an opportunity in the coming months of endeavouring to restore the emphasis that was originally there on the need and near certainty that within the European Community we would see the utilisation of resources in the area where resources were in plentiful supply to boost the living standards and economic opportunities of the less well-off areas.
I turn now to some of the points raised by Senators from the opposite side of the House. Senator Lynch and Senator Lanigan seemed to convey that they are powerless as elected members of their councils to affect either the scale or the manner in which charges for services are introduced. Senator Lanigan stated that councillors in Kilkenny did not know what money would be allocated from the central fund to the county council. That is an injustice to that body. I would not allow this situation to apply to the local authority in Clare, and I am satisfied that neither would you, a Leas-Chathaoirligh. The implication in what the Senator said is that elected members are useless, ineffective and incapable of exercising the very clear authority provided for in legislation. In my local authority on Monday we had an eight hour meeting, which was the sixth finance meeting to be held by that body in the course of the last month and where the details of all eight programmes for this year were discussed in detail. The elected members of that local body are using their authority and the powers they have to effect the changes, to effect economies, and they decide the amount and extent of the charges that will be applicable for the services that will apply within that part of County Clare which is under the jurisdiction of Clare County Council. That was not the final meeting in this regard. The entire council are acting in their role as a finance committee. A further meeting, at least, is necessary before the full estimates meeting can be held.
I had occasion when we were debating local government here in the past to say that local councillors have the authority they need to be masters in their own house if they want to exercise that authority. It is pointless saying that the county manager can decide this charge or that charge, that he can apply this charge or that charge; he can only do so if elected members opt out of their duties and their responsibilities. If this is happening in County Meath, or in County Kilkenny, it is happening through the default of the elected members of these bodies there. It is not happening in County Clare, I am happy to say.
In regard to the holding of local elections, I do not accept and I never did accept, that they should be tied in with or become confused with the holding of an election to some other assembly on the same day. Local issues are important ones. They will become more important so on the day of an election to local authorities there should be no confusing side issues introduced to interfere with the concept and understanding of the electorate for what they require of their local representatives. It is only fair in view of what I said about the standing of some of them not appearing to be very high that I accept some of the contributions made here. It is very important that we recognise the contribution our local councillors make on behalf of the people they represent. They serve the public and they serve them for very little recompense. They devote time which is costly for many of them. The cost of representing the public is something they bear from their own pocket. I refer to postage and telephone expenses.
In that regard I would join with Senator Burke in renewing a request to the Minister that has been made here before on many occasions, that is, that public representatives should be compensated for the legitimate costs they incur in representing their electorate. I do not think it is beyond the capacity of the Minister and officials in his Department to devise a method of doing this. Local representatives are the first line in dealing with local problems. They successfully overcome any of the difficulties. I could go so far as to say that they rectify many injustices that would not be rectified without their active and effective participation. They are an excellent example of democracy at work at grassroots level. We should recognise that many of us here, perhaps all of us here, served our apprenticeship at local level as did some of the finest leaders and best Cabinet Ministers in this State.
Somebody from across the way said there was a concern on the Coalition side about holding these elections, that the wrath of the electorate might be reflected in the results. I have this theory about local elections and local councillors: that the political divide is something that knocks that barrier when it comes down to local politics. Local issues and local personalities obtain the votes and then go on to serve their people well. They have little difficulty in retaining their seats irrespective of what way the political climate might be at any time. If there were fears on this side on that score, we will be facing the European elections and we face them with confidence. That has not been a factor in the equation.
I will conclude by saying that it is only commonsense that the review of the reorganisation of the structures of local government would be completed and that the question of financing the local authorities would also be put on an effective and operational basis whereby local authorities can operate satisfactorily. It is necessary that both these things be done and then let us have our local elections. When both these objectives have been achieved, that is the time to hold the local elections. For that reason I wholeheartedly support the motion before the House.
First, I welcome the Minister of State to the House in his new capacity. I wish him well. It was attributed to me by Senator Ferris today that I had a big part to play in the postponement of these elections. That may have arisen from the fact that when the Fianna Fáil Party had their youth conference in Tralee the question was raised about the postponement of elections and that it was said that a certain Senator, Jackie Daly, had sent out circulars to the councils around the country, had done a survey that no matter what the result of it was, Fianna Fáil would see to it that the local elections would be held this year. The following day The Irish Press gave that front page attention. I was not a bit perturbed about that because I only did what was my right to do, to look after the county councillors in my constituency who expressed the desire to have the elections postponed. This was not because they were afraid to fight the elections, as was pointed out by Senators O'Toole, Fallon and Lanigan.
There was one more Fianna Fáil speaker today who surprised me. If Fianna Fáil were sincere about the postponement of the elections and they wanted them held it was strange that they did not come in and make their views known. We have had a very mild debate other than that they all sang the same song — that we were afraid on this side of the House of going before the people, that the elections were postponed because we were afraid of losing. That is hypocritical of a party who on 13 occasions postponed the local elections. If, for no other reason, being a superstitious person, I would like to see that 13 broken and going into 14. I should like to see it for many more reasons and for very good and valid reasons. I should like to see it for the main reason which the Minister pointed out, that he wanted to restructure the local authorities and that he was postponing the elections until 1985. He also said he was postponing these elections until the restructuring was completed. I would hope that if the restructuring is not completed by 1985 they would be adjourned again until such time as the restructuring is completed.
It was said also here today that not holding these elections on the day of the European elections would result in a very low poll. The history of voting in this country compares more than favourably with most other countries in the world in so far as we have had a high percentage of voting down through the years in all the different elections. The strange thing about it is this fear on the part of the Opposition that there will be a low turnout. That is a myth. Recently when we had a by-election in Dublin we had approximately 200 of the 226 Members of the Oireachtas combing out that constituency, canvassing it two and three times, launching one of the heaviest campaigns that could have been launched. At the end of the day it resulted in a 50 per cent poll. Compare that constituency in a previous election which was the referendum amendment and where no political party were involved, when there were no transport system, no election officers, no canvassing from door to door but there was a 60 per cent poll. That is an indication that the people do not want elections. Originally in this country we had elections running between three-and-a-half to four years but since 1981 in 18 months we have had three general elections, three Seanad elections and two by-elections. No party can be in any doubt as to whether the people want further elections. The opportunity for the people to show how they felt and who they wanted elected was provided on a greater number of occasions than ever before in the history of the country. Those elections showed that we will not have any single party Government in this country or any single party having an overall majority.
Saying that the people are being deprived of an election, people on this side of the House are frightened and that Fianna Fáil are rearing to go, is not true. I have been talking to Fianna Fáil people and people of all shades of opinion in this House about this in the last eight or nine months, and the only people who are anxious to have elections are young people who are not members of local authorities and who feel they are being deprived of being members of a local authority for another year and maybe another two years, but they are few. When we talk about our local county councillors it is derogatory to say they are afraid they will lose their seats. The members of the local authorities are the only people who devote their time and attention to the affairs of the nation without being paid for it. That should be recognised and we should be paying tribute to them instead of suggesting that they might find themselves without their seats. If people wanted to work for nothing, that would be one way of ensuring that there would be no unemployment. The councillors are doing a great job. They have considerable expenses. They are paying their own telephone bills and postage.
Representations are being made by a couple of bodies to have free telephone rental and to have a postage allowance in order that they can carry out their jobs without putting their hands in their pockets every time something comes up. I have been in councillors' houses during Seanad election campaigns and I have seen constituents coming to the councillors, asking them to make inquiries on behalf of a member of their family or a relation who might be in hospital in Dublin, Cork or elsewhere. It is often the case that a councillor telephoning a Dublin hospital is transferred from one person to another and finally after about 12 minutes gets an answer. The telephone bill for such a call is about £3. I never saw any of those councillors asking for the price of a call, and neither have I known of the inquirer offering to pay for the telephone call. In some cases it might be a lack of thought on their part but in many cases they would not be in a position to pay. The least the local representatives should get is free rental and free postage and recognition of the job they are doing for the people who have elected them.
Another point that was ignored by the Opposition — maybe it was deliberate — when they were talking about the hiding we were going to get on this side of the House, the victory they were going to have on the councils, was the question of the opinion polls. Opinion polls have proved in the past to be accurate within 3 to 5 per cent and have shown that our Government as against the Opposition have gained in the past few months. The Dublin by-election was supposed to give us the urge to go to the country and not have the restructuring of the local authorities in order that we would find ourselves in the position that we would not have an election until that restructuring was completed, whether in 1985 or 1986. There was another suggestion from the Opposition that the election could save the people a lot of money if the two were held on the one day. I do not think the Senators were sincere in that. Maybe they will have an opportunity in the near future when a certain election is coming up to have that held on the same day as another election, and then we will see how sincere the Opposition are about holding two elections on one day and saving the people money.
Senator Lanigan spoke about the abolition of rates and the great job that was done when the rates were abolished in 1977 and when at the same time taxation on private motor cars was removed. The net result of that was that we have the worst road network in any country in the British Isles and maybe in any country in Europe. Now we are paying the price, the chickens have come home to roost. I am a director of a company involved in transporting 300 people to work every day in Killarney. In the past we may have broken one spring in the year but now we are breaking one spring a week. Each time we break a spring it costs about £150, and if one multiplies that by two or three coaches one will get an idea of what it costs us. A small company like ours found that as a consequence of no rates there was no road maintenance, thus resulting in potholes. Most of the money that is spent on the repair of motor vehicles is going out of the country to import the parts, such as springs and steel, and this is now affecting not only our costs but also our balance of payments. It was a bad day's work to abolish rates and car tax in 1977. We now find that car tax has had to be re-introduced with a vengeance; it is now higher than ever it was, because it should never have been taken away in the first place. There was no demand for it to be taken away but it was done for one purpose only, to win an election.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
On the Order of Business today we made a decision. Will the Leader of the House indicate if that still stands?
It seems to me that this debate is following the pattern of many debates we have had in the Seanad. After the first hour everybody believes the debate is going to collapse, then it staggers on and then it gets new strength. I am not quite sure about the strength left in the House on this topic. I would suggest, since the House is not sitting tomorrow, that if we are within 20 minutes or 30 minutes of completing the debate we might change our order and go through. I do not know how long the Minister wishes to speak in reply. I do not know how many speakers are still offering. I suggest that we may get finished in ten minutes.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is that agreed? I think the House is agreed on that.
I thank the House for affording me the opportunity to reply. I should like to thank the House and all the Members who have contributed to what has been a most interesting and valuable discussion. I should like to comment on some of the positive and valuable points that were made. First, I will deal with the suggestion that the Government had some ulterior motive in moving the motion for the postponement of the local elections and that democracy is somehow threatened as a consequence.
Local elections have been postponed on no fewer than 13 occasions, as some speakers indicated, since the foundation of the State. The reasons given in the past have included the need for reform of local government and the need to avoid clashes with other elections. Eight of these postponements took place during the Fianna Fáil administration. The main reason for this postponement has been plainly stated, namely the need to progress to reform of the local government system. This need is not in question. It has been accepted by successive Governments, though some speakers today were indicating that they were for reform like the people against sin but, Lord, not just yet. Reform has been long overdue, and I think that has been accepted by both sides of the House. It is important that we take this matter seriously, that we do not put it in some sort of White Paper or Green Paper, play with it for a while and then push it to one side.
People involved in local authorities, the people on the ground, see a grave need for change. Society is changing, various aspects of needs and services are coming on-stream but the structure of local authorities has not changed very much over the past century. Even though we see the growth throughout the country there has been very little response to that growth. The time has come to be serious about local government reform. We must not just use pious platitudes in the future but deal with it as a reality. That is precisely what we are about. We are seeking for a postponement for one year so that we can come to grips with something that everybody wants. Why there is opposition to it when people are demanding reform is something I am at a loss to understand, but I suppose the political reality is that one has to make certain gestures to be seen to oppose.
There has been tremendous growth in Dublin with no corresponding response to local democracy. There has been talk about denying people democracy but surely people have been denied democracy over the years because of that growth with no corresponding growth in the development of local government in their areas. I was in the strange position in one of the constituencies I was in a couple of years ago that my Dáil national constituency was smaller than my local authority area. In our wildest imagination, that is not local government or local democracy. It is for that reason we must come to grips with the matter.
Outside Dublin there has been considerable growth of towns which have been extended beyond their electoral areas. People are using the towns for all the services but they have not got a democratic say in what goes on because they are excluded by lines drawn up. That is something we have to look at also. We owe a debt to local government and local democracy. It has served this country well. Senators spoke today of the service our councillors gave throughout the country, and they were pleading for some sort of better subsistence allowance and better facilities. Indeed I want to assure the House that in any reform obviously that would have to be taken into account. Because of the way the people have served their local areas and constituencies in the past one must have the height of praise for them. If democracy at the top is to survive it must have a healthy and thriving lower tier. I am not a member of a local authority but I sense a lot of disenchantment with local authorities in recent years. The members themselves are becoming totally disenchanted. They do not feel part of anything. It has become too big for them in many ways and they do not feel they are in touch with the ordinary person in the street and this leads to alienation at local level. If that is not contained it can work its way up to central government and that is something we would all wish to avoid. By having a much healthier and more positive approach towards local government and giving it more powers it will make it more meaningful to the ordinary man in the street. If local government is not meaningful to him then we are in trouble. We have got a great growth in community development but have not responded to that yet. It is time we looked at community development and community growth and Senator Robb and a number of other Senators mentioned this in their contributions. It is important that we respond to the needs of people. Indeed satellite towns are growing without any real representation. They tend not to develop in a structured or ordered way and the sooner we can get proper local government reform into this whole area the better.
I was hoping there would be more contributions of a constructive nature with ideas on reform because that affects us all. We can play the bit of politics that is part of the game we are in and is part of our discipline, but the overriding factor is that we have obligations to preserve what is good in our society. There is no doubt that local government is good and excellent. I ask Members of this House to put on their thinking caps and think how they see reform and to make their proposals. As I indicated, it is a matter for all of us. We will be having discussions with county councils, municipal authorities and other agencies and bodies to see what is required. So let us not say what is being done in the postponing of these elections is a Machiavellian plot to run away from the electorate. There is an election in June and people will have to knock on doors so it is not a question of fear of knocking on doors. We will have to take that on board. There is also the possibility now of a referendum as a result of the High Court decision on votes for non-nationals in this country. I have no doubt it will be our wish to have a referendum to clear that up and we could still have two elections on that day.
Senator O'Toole mentioned the question of cost and he said there would be a saving of a large sum of money if we had two elections on the one day. There would obviously be savings, and one would not deny that but one would have to question the amount involved. If an election costs £1 million it does not follow that if we have two elections it will still cost £1 million. Separate ballot papers and ballot boxes would be necessary and the counting would have to be done separately. We could not save half the cost. I would have to deny the charge that it is gross waste of money.
In September the Local Authority Members' Association, a body representing the elected members of local councils, passed a resolution that the local elections and the European elections should not be held in conjuction with each other in 1984 because they said the local elections might be used as a prop for the European elections. The people who will be affected do not want the two elections on the one day. I am not using that as an argument, I am merely pointing out that the local councillors do not want it. Indeed one would ask, is it reasonable to suggest that we should have local elections on the same day because we are afraid that in the European elections the poll may be low? I suggest that if we thought that we should let it run and find out if it is low. Then it would be up to the committed Europeans and to us all to look at what is wrong and ask why people are not taking on board the idea of European elections but we will not know if we are running it in tandem with another election and local people are coming out. To have the European elections on their own is a worthwhile exercise to test the water and to find out what is the interest in the European elections. Let us examine it and find out if we are going in the right European direction. I am not trying to defend putting back the elections for that reason, but as the opportunity is there I think we should consider it.
One of the important points which was raised by a number of speakers is the question of finance. One aspect is local government reform on the administrative side, but financing is another aspect. Possibly that has disillusioned a number of people involved in the councils.
Some Senators today gave the impression that councillors have no say whatsoever in the financial structures of local authorities. Senator Lynch and Senator Lanigan mentioned this, but I would have to say that is not correct and to Senator Howard's credit he pointed this out. Councillors have the right to adopt the estimates. They have also a right, as a result of the local government financial provisions of 1983 to strike the rate in the pound. Now they say that the manager can make whatever local charges he likes, but he cannot, because he is confined within the terms of the estimates and the shortfall at estimate time is a matter for councillors. The manager will have to make up the shortfall by striking the particular charges, but councillors can refine the estimates and bring them down as low as possible.
To say that councillors have not got a say in the financial provisions of their own local authority area is not correct. I admit that the manager has the right to make the charges, but only after the estimates have been struck and the shortfall known and that shortfall is known to the councillors. They determine it, and I want to make this quite clear. We should not say that councillors have absolutely no responsibility.
Obviously we would like to see them with more responsibility, and that gets back to the whole question of financial reform. We are aware since the abolition of the rates in 1977 and recently the High Court decision on agricultural rates that there has been a great diminution in the whole financial input into local authorities, but central government now are making direct grants at the rate of 66 per cent whereas in 1977 it was 39 per cent. The input from central government is getting bigger and bigger, and one has to question whether that is good for local democracy. I believe it is not. It is time that we looked at it and did something about it.
The cost of postal and other reasonable and necessary expenses to be recouped should be looked at in any reform; local councillors should not be out of pocket. As I indicated earlier, they do a great job. We should recognise that and we should ensure they are not out of pocket.
Senator Lanigan raised a point which I regret to some extent: he referred to the appointment of managers, and as I see it it was a reflection on the Local Appointments Commission. I regret this because they are a very reputable and independent body. They are highly respected and they do a good job. There should not be any reflection cast upon an independent body like that because of their appointments, and the work they have done has always stood up. We should not cast any aspersions on a commission such as that.
Senator Ulick Burke talked about supplementary welfare allowances and demands by local authorities. I agree there is a problem there: I want to assure him that it is being looked at, and obviously it will be taken into account with regard to any changes in the financial structures. He said that the local authority should get a block grant and do what they want with it, but one could argue for and against that. In some sectors, particularly with regard to important roads, central government should at least be able to tell local authorities of their general plans to ensure co-ordination. Outside of that the local authorities have a fairly wide discretion on how they look after their own finances, but in certain areas there must be constraints and there must be direction in the national interest. I do not think anybody will disagree with that.
Basically there is no ploy here. It is a sincere attempt once and for all to take on board something that we have been talking about for 30 years. One could be cynical and say: "Local elections were put off before for doing this and this might be another ploy." I want to assure the House that there will be reform, and I appeal to Members and everybody to participate in this exercise. It is a very important reform. It is necessary, it is long overdue and I believe it will pay rich dividends in the whole exercise of democracy. Democracy is always under some kind of threat. If we as democrats are prepared to take what has been there for the last 60, 70 or 80 years and leave it untouched somebody else might touch it for us, somebody who might not have the same respect for it that we have. It behoves us to take it seriously. We should do this in the interests of the people we serve, thus bringing the service nearer to the community, nearer to the man in the street. I hope when we have completed it the ordinary man in the street can say that local government is meaningful, that it does something for his area and community and that it has made a big difference. If we can achieve that we will have done something which is long overdue and very worth while.
Question put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 29; Níl, 18.
Tá
- Belton, Luke.
- Browne, John.
- Bulbulia, Katharine.
- Burke, Ulick.
- Connor, John.
- Conway, Timmy.
- Daly, Jack.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Dooge, James C. I.
- Durcan, Patrick.
- Ferris, Michael.
- FitzGerald, Alexis J. G.
- Fleming, Brian.
- Harte, John.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howard, Michael.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kelleher, Peter.
- Lennon, Joseph.
- Loughrey, Joachim.
- McDonald, Charlie.
- McGonagle, Stephen.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Magner, Pat.
- O'Brien, Andy.
- O'Leary, Seán
- Quealy, Michael A.
- Robinson, Mary T. W.
Níl
- Cassidy, Donie.
- de Brún, Séamus.
- Ellis, John.
- Fallon, Seán.
- Fitzsimons, Jack.
- Hanafin, Des.
- Honan, Tras.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Mick.
- Lynch, Michael.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- O'Toole, Martin J.
- Ross, Shane P. N.
- Ryan, Brendan.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, William.
- Smith, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Belton and Harte; Níl, Senators W. Ryan and de Brún.
Question declared carried.