Before we commence debate I wish to announce a correction to the text of motion No. 58 as printed on the Order Paper. The words "UN Charter" in the first line should read "Council of Europe Charter."
Local Government Reform: Motion.
I move:
That Seanad Éireann calls on the Government to sign and ratify the UN Charter on local self-government so that:
(i) power resides with the people where it rightfully belongs, and
(ii) decisions are taken by the tier of government nearest to the people,
which would ensure that the Structural Funds allocated to Ireland are maximised and put to their most effective use as determined locally, for the benefit of the Irish people.
We should have had a full debate on the reform of local government when we debated the 1991 Local Government Bill in the Seanad. Few hours were allocated for that debate and, unfortunately, a guillotine was placed on this extremely important issue. However, the timing now is not inappropriate as the Taoiseach and his team have just returned from Maastricht where, I am sure, they got the best possible deal for Ireland. It is important to emphasise at this stage that our response to what they secured at the summit will be vital. The Taoiseach reported satisfactory progress at the summit. In themselves, the changes imminent in 1992 and at Maastricht will not solve anything. They are opportunities and all will depend on how we grasp them. It is not just a question of getting a good whack of the enlarged Structural Funds.
When we gained independence in 1921 we were among the better off people in Europe. Now, sadly, we are among the worst off financially. Why is it that Ireland has been less successful than other small European democracies in developing its social and economic resources? Since we joined the EC in 1973 much of our indigenous industry has been wiped out. Expensive inducements to foreign industrialists have allowed us to survice, or just about. This policy of inducing industrialists into the country was a flawed policy, and belatedly we saw that.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs, when speaking in this House a few days ago on the Maastricht debate pointed out that we had a number of economic and social problems, namely unacceptably high unemployment, high emigration levels and an under-developed infrastructure. During my contribution to that debate I pointed out that this summing up by the Minister was confirmed in the NESC report on Ireland in Europe. I do not intend to repeat what I said on that occasion but the NESC report confirms that poor performance.
In an article in The Irish Times last Saturday, Paul Gillespie mentioned that NESC had initiated a comparative study by a Norwegian social scientist which was expected to highlight several institutional and sociological barriers to development in Ireland, namely, prevailing forms of corporatism and clientism in our political system. Most stable societies are liberal, always changing and rightly so. However, it appears that one generation can quickly forget the principles on which that society was founded and start a calamitous slide. In our case the shining vision of Parnell and the founders of this State has been reduced to squalor by the contemporary scandals, all too well known to everybody here.
What, I ask, is the problem? I believe, and in this I am supported by many thinking people who have addressed this problem, that the difficulty lies in the centralised nature of our society. We inherited that from the British; a colonial government never thinks the locals can do anything right. After the foundation of the State, in spite of laudable sentiments about self-reliance, the trend to centralism continued. Between 1923 and 1925, three quarters of local authorities in this country were wiped out, bringing the number down from 460 to a meagre 120.
Professor Joe Lee in his History of Ireland said:
In 1921 the higher civil servants of the Free State misguidedly associated corruption and incompetence with local government and as far as politically possible centralised administrative authority in Dublin.
This trend continued inexorably so that by the early sixties we had one of the tightest controls on local government of any country in Europe. The problems arising from that were recognised as early as the forties. The Commission on Vocational Organisation sought wider participation in decision-making and pressed hard for its introduction. The problem is now recognised all over Ireland. I am very much aware through my contacts with other local authorities of the frustration they feel at this centralism, where everything is focused on Dublin and is located in Dublin.
Councillor Michael McGreal of Roscommon County Council in an article in The Irish Times of 25 May 1991 said:
We have the most centralised Government in the EC. We are also amongst the poorest members. The connection is obvious. If there is no place for initiative and resourcefulness, how could it be otherwise? Democracy is about self-government. Totalitarianism, communism and dictatorship advocate central power and gratuitous devolution. It is now more important than ever that we fight for truly European local community structure if we are to progress in the European Community.
The consequences of centralism have been fully demonstrated in the Eastern European countries and in the USSR, where the more centralism, the less progress.
If we compare Ireland and other western European democracies we find that in relation to our resources our apparatus of Government in size and complexity is in the big league, while our overall comparative performance lags behind. Tom Barrington speaks of the relative size of the Irish Government being one of the largest in the OECD. I will quote liberally from Tom Barrington and I would like to remind the Minister that Tom Barrington was appointed chairman of the advisory expert committee by his Government, so I presume the Minister has confidence in his opinion.
In no other western European country, not even in the United Kingdom, is local democracy treated with so much contempt as in this country. In few countries is central bureaucracy so arrogant or so incompetent as here and sadly I believe that the Department of Finance is at the heart of this scandal. There are scant returns from relatively vast capital budget expenditure. There has been a series of deficits on current budgets since 1972 with consequential huge borrowing at home and abroad and a paralysis on taxation reform. It is amusing to note as an aside that the regional development organisation which did such an important job in this country was abolished by the Minister; the excuse given was to save travelling expenses. This would be funny if it were not so sad.
Ireland is three times as centralised as the western European norm. It is accepted elsewhere that big Government is a reality in the modern world but it is tempered by vigorous democracy and wide citizen participation, which is not the case in Ireland. S. Pollard in a United Nations economic study says: "We have, incomparably, the worst record since 1921 of any economy except the British". Centralism is wasteful of public resources and, in this country, got bigger and bigger until finally it burst.
Having recognised the reality we must seek explanations not excuses. We have an exceptionally dedicated and talented Civil Service but they operate under a rigid administration which is undoubtedly damaging to decision making. Barrington sees it as "the congestion of central Government". The Civil Service is bogged down with detail and minutiae to such an extent that they lose sight of the big picture. This fact was brought home to me many years ago in the west of Ireland. We have a cottage near Roundstone in a group water scheme and we were most anxious that water come to our area. I saw local people put a great deal of work into the project and local engineers from Galway County Council came out on innumerable occasions, modified the plan and come up with what was accepted as a satisfactory solution. The inspector from Dublin then came down to tell the locals how they should be doing this. He knows better, of course; as a superior being from Dublin, he must know better. I have given this example here before but it is so appropriate that I would like to give it again in case the Minister has not heard it.
In my early days on the city council it was decided unanimously to abolish the no smoking regulation. The following month a member lit up a cigarette which was drawn to the attention of the Lord Mayor. After a little kefuffle at the top table between the city manager and the Lord Mayor we were told rather sheepishly by one of the unfortunate officials that the no smoking rule could not be implemented because the Minister had not yet sanctioned it. We cannot even introduce a no smoking regulation in our chamber without the sanction of our Minister. That makes the situation clear.
Again and again on the Adjournment debate, we hear Members bring up details which should not take up the time of a busy Minister. It may be the sewerage in Greystones which Senator Ross brought up or the cycle way around St. Stephen's Green which I brought up last evening and on that occasion the Minister, Deputy Calleary, berated me in good spirit for my sudden parish pump enthusiasm. The point he missed was that I should not have to bring that subject in here nor should he have to waste his precious time dealing with something which could be well dealt with by a local or other appropriate authority.
The Department of Finance are endlessly overseeing how their money is spent; "big brother" in Dublin gives the all important approval to the tiniest projects. Is it any wonder that local authorities behave irresponsibly on occasions? How can they learn responsibility when they are not given any? This intense centralisation leads to intense bureaucratisation which leads in turn to muddle, fragmentation at the periphery, divided and overlapping responsibility, to waste and inefficiency and frustration of spontaneous local development.
Central Government is bogged down in administrative detail and tasks whose solution properly demands local insight into a local problem. This paralyses the Government's ability and initiative to solve the major task with which they should be concerned, co-ordination, modifying legislation and solving problems regarding economic policy, strategic planning, etc.
We must recognise that the fundamental cause of our national failure is centralisation, now a discredited system. We have reached a stage of democratic dictatorship. It sounds like a contradiction but it sums up our position very well.
Now I come to what should be done. First, we must acknowledge that the system has become arthritic; arteriosclerosis has set in. I am not prepared to accept that Irish people are thick or any less talented than people in other European countries. We are an extremely talented people which is borne out by their performance abroad when, sadly they are obliged to emigrate. We need to decentralise and I hope the Minister will not confine himself to relocation. Relocating a Government Department to Athlone or Ballina is not decentralisation.
I have not used the word "devolution" which I do not like. It presumes that power resides at the top and then gratuitously devolves downwards. We must remember that power belongs to the people and they cede it up to the local authority, to the UDC in turn to the county council who cede it to the National Parliament and to the Minister who in turn is now going to cede it to the Parliament in Europe.
What must be done? Central Government must let go of the apron strings. They must stop imagining decentralisation as cumbersome and inefficient and cease blaming councillors for not doing what they are not permitted to do. We must need start to mobilise individual abilities. We need to get away from the rights without responsibilities syndrome, the idea that society can get something for nothing such as low taxes and abundant welfare payments. If people were involved more in Government they would come to understand that the cake is limited and must be carefully and fairly cut up. The only way to restrain people's natural desire for more is to create awareness of the limitations involved. We must encourage local authorities to grow up and place more confidence in their capacity to act responsibly. We must bring Government close to the people because that is the only way to guarantee democracy.
When I was elected to the City Council in 1974 I found I had been elected to the second largest local authority in Ireland. I was somewhat daunted by the task of looking after the needs and concerns of such a large number of people and I realised frankly that I could not do the job if I were to deal with each problem on an individual basis. So what did I do? I had been instrumental in setting up many community and residents' associations in my area. I took out a map of the area and where such associations did not exist I encouraged people to form them. Gradually my local authority area was covered by community and residents' associations and I dealt through them. If somebody contacted me with a specific problem I would ask them if they had been to their local association for help.
That strategy had two results. I propped up the local associations' confidence in their ability to solve problems and gave them experience. It also released me to do what I considered more meaningful and important work on behalf of my constituents. Significantly, it brought representatives of different associations together. They learned that a problem from one area could not be shoved into the next area, such as redirecting traffic from one road, where it was causing a problem, to another. They had to sit down together to see how the problem could be solved to the benefit of all. I suggest that the Minister recommend that procedure to his Department.
We must accept the importance of local government as opposed to central Government. The Taoiseach spoke recently in the Dáil about the need for consensus in Europe, and the need to provide an effective voice for people at EC level. Why should the Taoiseach tell that to Europe? We want some of that here at home, some of what the Taoiseach says he wants for members of the European Community. We can learn a great deal from the way policy is made through a coming together of public and private sectors not only at national but at local level.
We need consistency regarding social and economic targets among Government, trade unions and many other organisations with common objectives regarding the way forward, a kind of a virtuous circle of agreed policies. If the same locally based creativity was brought to bear on economic and social issues that is evident in many community activities — amateur dramatics, tidy towns competitions, local sport and so on — we would make great progress. The problem is that there is no opportunity for popular input, no forum with teeth, no mechanism for constructive criticism so that people can shout stop if they do not like something. The thrust of powers is all in the wrong direction.
We can learn a great deal from Europe, and I am sure the Minister is already familiar with the charter itself. It is not a radical document but simple straightforward reforms are required in this country if we sign it. I have a table here of 14 European countries showing the functions of local authorities in each. The most successful large country in Europe is Germany and 31 functions in Germany are carried out by local authorities. In Switzerland, the most successful small country, 30 functions were carried out by local authorities. The average is 25.6 functions over 14 countries. What is the number of functions carried out in Ireland by local authorities? Ten, and that tells us a lot.
We need to value the partnership between community and statutory bodies. I want to convince the Minister that we must make changes. I am not going to speak about the financing of local authorities or go into details which have been gone into over and over again since 1971. What we need is to change our attitude, our philosophy. We need to redistribute power away from the centre, to delegate, then the Government and the Ministers will be released and the Minister will find his job, I believe, more creative and more exciting because he could be involved in strategic planning. Able civil servants would be able to do the same instead of breathing down the necks of the local authorities. We need to look at the underlying causes not advance band aid responses to symptoms.
Subsidiarity is a great word but we never put it into practice by making local representatives and local authorities responsible and accountable. There is general agreement that we need reform which is extraordinary. I would like the Minister to address this in his reply. Every political party in the Dáil and Seanad, Muintir na Tíre, the Chambers of Commerce and the Municipal Authorities Association, agreed that we must bring about change and reform. We have had White Papers and Green Papers. It started in 1971, with a White Paper or perhaps a Green Paper and a good response from the IPA but nothing changed. In 1985 we had a Local Government Bill which changed nothing. In 1991 another Local Government Act was passed here; little happened. I appreciate that we abolished the ultra vires rule which would benefit local authorities if they had resources and other important issues like town twinning, civic receptions and how much the chairman would be paid were also settled, but nothing really happened. Section 50 put an onus on the local authority to publish an annual report. No fundamental change occurred.
I am disturbed that the Minister is not prepared to sign the charter which would indicate his bona fides and would lead on possibly to the implementation of the necessary legislation and to ratification of the charter. All the Minister is prepared to do is to keep the charter under review. Nothing has happened because the politicians and officials in central Government see local government as a threat to themselves. They do not want any change. The present arrangements regarding local government suit those who control the levers of power. It is in the interest of all governments, not only the Minister's Government to maintain the status quo. The tiny bureaucracies of the national parties join forces with the vast bureaucracy of the central administration all with a vested interest in the status quo.
The root problem is the attitude of the power brokers in Leinster House who thrive on the centralisation of power, on the principle, doubtless that the more power one has, the more clout one has at one's disposal for the system of clientism and the "favours bank" operating in this country. Our acquiesence has been ensured, our silence has been bought and all constructive criticism and creative thinking has been stifled by a system of handouts, grants, the disposal of social service funds and the distribution of lottery funds. All these moneys are seen as gifts from the Government. If one is good one gets one's gift or goodies. With decentralisation, local representatives might get their hands on some of the purse strings and that would not do.
We have reached a situation where the ideology and dogma of political parties is placed ahead of the interests of the people through worn out political divisions that no longer make sense. I believe Irish politicians are now held in as low esteem as those in Moscow, and that is fairly low. I saw a quote recently: "The cause of the wealth of nations is most of all creative mind, invention, discovery, personal and associative enterprise and the free institutions that support it." If we were to introduce the centralisation I have spoken about we would release the dynamic that is so vital for this country. We would encourage a spirit of individual initiative and enterprise which would flower. We would awaken the latent resourcefulness of our people. Ideas, skills and energy would flow to regenerate the community. Economic regeneration, jobs and employment would surely follow.
The local authorities could be the source of new ideas, creativity and potential. They would take opportunities for positive action. The profits and benefits would be enormous and over spending and waste would be reduced. We should not tell people what to do. We should help them to do what they themselves want to do, on the basis that commitment, not authority, achieves results. If we believe in people and give them confidence and enthusiasm, their motivation will be unstoppable. I believe that our manifold problems can be solved, but only by a united community effort.
I will conclude with a quote from Baron Crespo, President of the European Parliament. He said: "Either our citizens are in a position to benefit from European integrity or else they will all be its victims". If we introduce measures such as those I have outlined, we can face the future with confidence not fear, with hope not despair. I believe we can solve our problems.
Tá mé an-sásta tacú leis an moladh seo mar gheall ar liosta fada de chúiseanna.
Senator Hederman has said, quite rightly, that we are the most centralised country in the EC. I suspect we are the most centralised in the whole of Europe. Not even the post-Stalinist emerging democracies, in their transition stages, have anything like our centralisation. In terms of size the nearest country to us in the EC is Denmark and in the past ten years Denmark has transferred 70 per cent of what used to be the functions of central Government to regional and local authorities. Let us remember what T. J. Barrington said about the offensively named "regions" the Government created, out of a hat, for the European Social and Structural Funds. He called them "offensive squiggles on the map of Ireland with no integrity and no unity". At one stage County Kerry was divided between two different regions — an exercise in idiocy that denies the identity of one of the most identity-conscious counties.
The idiocies of central Government are endless. There is a daft idea according to which a city manager, chief executive officer of the vocational education committee or chief executive officer of a health board must get the permission of the Minister before he can do any of an endless list of things. Somebody who is paid, perhaps, £35,000 or £40,000 a year has to get the permission of the Minister. The "Minister" may turn out to be a junior official in a Department who is paid a fraction of what the chief executive officer is paid, has a fraction of the training, qualifications and experience. He may take out a bureaucratic manual which says, according to regulation X, it is right, or according to regulation Y it is wrong. The idea that the Minister looks at every single one of the endless list of things that require his approval is rubbish.
There is a bureaucratic mess in the heart of Ireland. In the city I live in the Office of Public Works have been responsible for the offensive desecration of a whole side of a beautiful street. They have been utterly unresponsive to the plans of the city and have planted an ugly Government office block in the middle of Sullivan's Quay. Our national broadcasting organisation cannot yet have a decent studio outside of the centre, not through its own fault. We have concentrated too much power and authority in inward-looking, bureaucratic Stalinism that masquerades as central Government in this State.
The Department of the Marine gave permission for sand to be taken from a beach 140 miles away in the west of Connemara without even looking at it or consulting anybody locally. They decided, in an office in Dublin, what could be done in Connemara. They knew best. The then Minister for Finance brought EC officials to visit Cork to look at his pet projects without as much as the courtesy of a visit to the local government body because he knew that local authorities did not count. He knew where real authority lay. The dissolution of the corporations of Cork, Limerick and Waterford is imminent because of a deficit in the fundamental right of local authorities to fund themselves. We have an endless list of extraordinarily dimwitted plans, procedures and processes. We have an obsession with centralised power.
This discussion is very welcome because, as Senator Hederman says, this charter is no revolutionary document. It is innocuous in terms of what one would believe local authorities should do. It contains nothing threatening the constitutional status quo or the powers of central Government. It is a reasonable, probably conservative, document about the nature of local democracy, but it is significant that no Irish Government will even sign it, not to mention ratify it, because they are afraid of democracy. The issue is that something as innocuous as this could frighten people. That is because we live in a society that is secretive, centralised and hierarchical, where the State, the Church, most of our trade unions and many of our sporting organisations are secretive, centralised and hierarchical. The essence of every powerful institution in the State is centralisation, secrecy and hierarchical authority which presumes that the person or the authority at the centre knows better than anybody else. It is the classic tyrany of experts.
That is why we have no freedom of information in this State, why trade unions operate in secret. All centralised authority in this state operates to preserve the hierarchical authority and is sceptical of democracy. If you talk to people about local democracy they will say: "How can ordinary people understand that?". Ordinary people understand the harshest realities of life: bringing up a family, buying a house and making all those things work, somehow, there is said to be a great complex array of difficult things that ordinary people could not understand. They understand very well and know they are being squeezed out and have no role. That is the objective of the centralised hierarchical authority.
We live in a tyranny of so-called experts, with the presumption that there is a body of knowledge at the centre, better than the body of knowledge available locally, or to communities. Any expert who can not explain what he means to ordinary people is a sham. The real expert is the one who can make sense to anyone. If any fellow tangles you up in gobbledegook, tell him to get lost. One of the great tyrannies of this country is the belief that, in Government Departments, there are experts who know better than the people on the ground.
There were two inquiries into whether the engineering authorities in Cork were right about a down-river crossing, the presumption being that someone in the Department of the Environment would know better. They would have a different view, but the presumption that up the hierarchical ladder you find better experts is nonsense. There is no guarantee of it, there is no reason why it should be so. They are all civil engineers with the same qualifications and experience. It is a myth to justify the concentration of authority at the centre. Stalin understood perfectly that centralisation confers all power on those at the top. It does not, as the Soviet people have discovered, confer all wisdom — quite the opposite. We are rapidly discovering the same thing ourselves.
We are effectively in a tyrany which does not exist by accident. It exists because a sinister force at the centre of our society — the Department of Finance — all through their history have stifled initiative and imagination and drawn all power to themselves. They keep that position. I invite Members to read Joe Lee's book or Ronan Fanning's history of the Department of Finance. In their external manifestations, that Department produce the antithesis of their own position. They want to take power away from the State. But, in the area of the State, they take more and more to themselves. That is the crux of it.
At the centre of our society lies a disbelief in democracy, and in the quality and power of ordinary people. The centralised system is perpetuated because it guarantees the ascendancy of those who support hierarchical, secretive, centralised authority. Under it, the country, as Senator Hederman said, is the collapsing. They want it because, like everybody else, they want power and like all those in power, they want power which is not accountable. The more layers of bureaucracy and so-called centralised power are built up, the more diffuse authority becomes. At the top are the Minister and his senior officials who can dispense largesse but, when something goes wrong, you never know whose fault it is. You never know who did it or why it was done because all the information is suppressed.
A ridiculous situation arose in the Supreme Court last July where central Government tried to tell the courts they could not see documents about a serious issue because these were privileged. They even wished to keep the courts out of their coterie of secrecy, privacy and centralised authority. That is the extent of the centralising bug in this country. Among other things it has destroyed local initiative.
Cork Corporation cannot put a yellow line on a street to restrict parking, without the permission of the Minister. That is absolutely ridiculous. To pedestrianise a street, they need the permission of both the Minister and the Garda Commissioner. The list is endless and none of these powers will be surrendered for reasons of rationale, policy making or something else. The truth is that the Minister will never see any of these proposals. If he did, he would be swamped under piles of paper.
He is anyway.
He may well be but, in any event he could not do all these things. A junior official who, perhaps, does not know where Cork is, will decide such things. Dublin is as much a victim of centralisation as Cork. It is not a question of geographical location: it is a question of the location of the centre of power. The problem is not one of organisation or of administration but of power. Power, as Senator Hederman quite rightly said, is the preserve of the people, not of bureaucrats, politicians, Government Ministers or anybody else. Power belongs to the people. We exercise what limited power we have under their conditions, when they let us and to the extent they allow. We do not devolve power to them; they devolve some of their power to us and we are frightened of handing it back. We are so frightened of local initiative and local enterprise that we go off on tangents about taxation and so on. The crux of the issue is power, who has it, who exercises it and how accountable that power is.
If we want to encourage popular participation we must, first, decentralise not civil servants but authority and decision making to the people. Second, we must ensure maximum accountability by introducing the most radical freedom of information legislation in Europe.
Acting Chairman
Tá dhá nóiméad eile agat. Ba mhaith liom go ndéanfá cuidiú foirmeálta leis an rún.
Deinim é sin díreach ar an bhointe seo ar eagla go dtarlódh aon rud as an mbealach.
The principle of openness in Government can only operate in a system of decentralised power. In Denmark 70 per cent of power has been devolved. We could work not just up to that figure but beyond it. Very little other than the raising of centralised taxation, foreign affairs and a few other things could not be done better locally than as at present nationally. People should also be encouraged to participate by letting them know what is being done in their name. Let me remind this House that in the last six months the Minister of State with responsibility for the environment, refused to make it obligatory to implement an EC Directive on Freedom of Information on the Environment. She said she could not make it compulsory. Why could it not be made compulsory to let the people know something they are entitled to know? Because it threatened the power at the centre and would hand power back to the people in an area of considerable importance. It is all about who has power and who should have it. It is time we gave it back to the people from whom central Government stole it.
I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Seanad Éireann" and substitute the following:
"supports the action being taken by the Government to reform and strengthen the local government system and notes the intention of the Government to keep the position in relation to the European Charter of Local Self-Government under consideration in the light of progress with the local government reform programme."
I am pleased to come to the Seanad this evening to respond to the motion put down by Senator Hederman and other Senators concerning the European Charter of Local Self-Government. Indeed, I thank Senators for raising this matter because it gives me the chance, not only to outline the position on the charter but also to review a number of important issues in relation to local government, including progress on local government reform. Having said that, however, I do not consider that the motion itself is well founded.
I would like to make it clear at the outset that the Government have been well aware of this charter and have kept the question of signing it under review. The charter contains provisions which touch on many different aspects of local government, such as, its basic rights and powers, structures, staff, elected members, finance and administration. These are all matters which are at present being dealt with as part of the Government's programme of local government reform. This has to be our priority. I believe that our position in relation to the Charter of Local Self-Government is one that should properly be considered when we have further advanced the local government reform programme.
I will return in a few moments to the key question of local government reform, but first I would like to touch briefly on the charter itself.
The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted the European Charter of Local Self-Government in the form of a convention in June 1985. The convention was opened for signature on 15 October 1985 and came into force on 1 September 1988; it has been signed by 18 countries and ratified by 15 countries. The charter is a fairly detailed and technical document. There would not be time to give a full account of its contents here tonight, but I would just like to mention some of its main features.
The Charter of Local Self-Government is the first legal statement at international level of standards and safeguards for local government. It includes provisions relating to the constitutional and legal basis for local self-government. It defines the nature and scope of local government and local authority powers. Further articles deal with the boundaries of local authorities, their administrative structures and staff and conditions for the holding of local elective office. There are provisions dealing with the supervision of local authority activities and their financial resources. Other provisions include the right of local authorities to co-operate and form associations and the protection of local self-government by the right of recourse to a legal remedy.
I should point out that conventions of this type are not, strictly speaking, legal acts of the Council of Europe itself but own their existence to the voluntary consent of member states. However, a convention has a binding nature with regard to those states which ratify it. It is a matter for each member state to decide whether to be a party to the charter but it is possible to exclude a limited number of articles from applying, while still adopting the charter.
I think every Member of this House will agree when I say that the decision to ratify any international treaty or convention is a major step. The Government would be failing in their duty to the people if they did not carefully weigh up all the factors before binding the State to such a document.
It will be clear from what I have said that the charter contains very important provisions. It deals with matters that are basic to our present local government system. Many of these are matters that also come within the scope of the Government's programme for local government reform. Therefore, we should, as I have said, look at the position in relation to the charter as the local government reform programme becomes more advanced. In saying this I am not in any way trying to avoid the issue of whether we should sign the charter. On the contrary, I believe local government reform must be the priority.
The charter is an important document. The idea of signing it may well have merit but that will be a matter for the Government to decide when the time is right. I would not want to prejudge that decision, but there are two points I would like to make at this stage. First the aims of the local government reform programme are very much in line with the thinking behind the charter as well as the letter of its provisions, as I understand it. Second, while it may be seen as desirable to adopt the charter, what matters most as far as local government in Ireland is concerned is what the Government are doing to modernise, strengthen and improve the local government system.
The Government are taking action which will bring major benefits to local government in Ireland. I will not ask Senators just to take my word for that. Senators who are members of either the Association of Municipal Authorities or the General Council of County Councils will know that those bodies have stated that the Local Government Act, 1991, contains many things that they had asked for over the years. Let me briefly remind the House of some of the major lasting benefits which the reform programme will bring to local government in Ireland.
The key aims of the local government reform programme are to strengthen local democracy, to enhance the role of local authorities and to improve the system of local government. Local authorities must be accountable to their communities and be able to respond to their problems and needs. They must be in a position to encourage and support local action to improve their areas. The reform programme also aims to increase efficiency and gear the local government system to modern day needs. Local authorities must be able to deliver the services which the people need and they must give value for money in so doing.
In order to ensure that local authorities will be able to meet these objectives, important reforms are being put in place in the structures, powers, functions, status, procedures and operations of local authorities. The Government's commitment to the role of local government and to local government reform is clearly shown by the fact that a major element of reform legislation — the Local Government Act, 1991 — has already been enacted. This Act deals with many of the issues to which I have just referred.
I have no doubt that the Members of Seanad Éireann are aware of the importance of the Local Government Act, 1991, but I am not so sure that the importance of the Act has been fully grasped in all quarters.
I hope the Minister is not referring to me.
It may be useful, therefore, while we are dealing with an international convention on local government, to reflect on some of the very important changes that are being brought about in our local government system.
The 1991 Act provides for measures, such as the loosening of the old ultra vires rule, devolution of functions to local level and doing away with unnecessary controls or procedures in relation to local authorities. It also provides for much needed updating of important areas of local government law such as boundary changes and the committee system. The Act deals with important aspects of local government structures. it provides for reform of local government in Dublin and also for a regional tier to promote co-ordination in public services. The position of the county or city as the main unit of local government has, of course, been confirmed. Various provisions of the 1991 Act will enable the local authority to play a greater role in relation to local communities and in various civic activities.
The Act will also help to ensure that the position of the elected members of local authorities is improved by, for example, statutory recognition of their policy making role, power to add to their reserved functions by order and provision for various improvements in their status and conditions.
The few passing references I have made to some heading of the Act probably do not do justice to the extent and depth of its provisions, but even these few brief references should show that the local government system is undergoing a major process of change and renewal. It is important, therefore, that a proposal such as the adoption of the charter should be considered as part of this process.
An important feature of the Local Government Act, 1991, is that it provides for reform on an on-going basis. This is important because reform cannot be brought about in a single action. It can only be done on a phased basis and in an orderly way. For this reason the timing of any decision in relation to the charter must be influenced by the development of the reform programme. The possibility of adopting the charter must be considered in the light of progress with the reform programme. This is not to say that a decision on the matter is being put on the long finger. The level of priority which the Government have given to the reform programme is shown by the fact that the 1991 Act was introduced within a very short time scale. Already over two-thirds of the provisions of the Act have been brought into force and work is in hands with a view to having remaining provisions brought into effect as soon as possible.
The Government have indicated their intentions in relation to various aspects of the reform programme which have still to be implemented or decided. The recent review of the Programme for Government, for example, gave a commitment in regard to examination on the question of devolution of functions by Government Departments to local authorities taking into account the relevant proposals in the Barrington report. This is, of course, a key aspect of the reform programme.
The review also indicated the intention that decisions in relation to proposals for sub-county local government structures would be taken by the Government before the end of this year. Decisions on matters such as these will be relevant to the question of adopting the Charter of Local Self-Government.
If we wanted just to make some kind of gesture or to grab a bit of publicity, maybe we could sign the convention straightaway, but that would be to ignore the fact that it is a very detailed and complex document. To decide our position on the matter before many important areas of the reform programme are finalised would not be desirable — it would be getting our priorities a bit mixed up.
As Senator will be aware, the adoption of the charter was recommended in the Barrington report on local government reform. the reason given for this was "to underpin the role envisaged for local government as a partner in the overall system of government".
I have no doubt that the proposers of this motion have done so because they feel it would be in the interests of local government to adopt the charter. I must point out that the Government also have the interests of local government at heart. That is why they have set out on a major programme of reform which has a higher priority.
I must also point out that the role of local government is not dependent on signing this charter. The role of local government in Ireland is defined in a large body of law which has been built up over the years and decades. During the past four and three quarter years those powers and functions have been increased in many ways. In addition to the Local Government Act, 1991, I could mention, for example, legislation in the areas of air pollution, water pollution, housing, roads, planning, urban renewal, derelict sites and electoral matters. Furthe Bills are proposed in relation to waste and road traffic.
New types of roles have also been given to local authorities. I can give examples in two areas in which I have a special interest — housing and urban renewal. The plan for social housing, which was announced earlier this year, brings a new approach to dealing with housing needs. A most important aspect of the plan is the fact that all the schemes are devolved to the local authorities from the start. That is yet another example of the confidence and trust which the Government place in local authorities. It gives further proof of the Government's commitment to the role of local government.
In the case of the urban renewal scheme, local authorities had to take on a new type of role in helping to generate private sector investment for good of their areas. Some authorities have been more successful than others, but the fact that over £1 billion worth of investment has been created and many rundown areas in our towns have been brought back to life shows what local authorities can do.
The local government reform programme will help to put local authorities in a better position to play new roles and meet new challenges. Local authorities will, as I have already said, be better able to respond to the needs of their communities and to play a full part in the development of their areas.
This House need have no doubts about the role of local government or about the fact that the Government see the local authorities as partners in working for economic and social progress. It should also be clear to the House that the wellbeing of local government in Ireland does not depend on the signing of a convention, no matter how good that document may be.
I want to deal with one other point before I finish. The motion before the House refers to maximising the Structural Funds allocated to Ireland and putting those funds to their most effective use. The Community support framework provided for a minimum of £2.8 billion in Structural Fund assistance to Ireland over the period 1989-93. Ireland is generally considered by the other member states to have negotiated an extremely high proportion of the total Structural Funds available and it is difficult to envisage how delegation of negotiating powers to a lower tier of Government could have resulted in even higher levels of assistance being secured.
As far as local authorities are concerned, total Structural Fund aid of £508 million has been provided over the period 1980-93 to support State investment in roads and water and sanitary services. This amounts to EC aid of over £100 million a year for projects carried out by local authorities throughout the country for the benefit of all, including, of course, local communities.
I can assure the House that the position in relation to the charter will be kept under review as the reform programme develops. It may well be that in the light off the further progress being made with the reforms the Government will decide that it is desirable to adopt the charter. If so, well and good, but in the meantime the local authorities will be getting on with the job and we will be pressing ahead with the necessary reforms to ensure that they will be able to continue to do a good job on behalf of their communities.
I have had a long association with local authorities throughout the country and up to the recent election, i was a member of a local authority. Even before we brought the 1991 reform Bill into the House, members of local authorities knew, as did members of Dublin Corporation, that they could redraft their expenditure estimates. I do not know whether the Senator is aware of that, but I want to assure Senator Hederman that that is the position.
There are only so much funds available for any project. Whether it comes from central funds or from own resources, that is a matter for the authority. if any local authority want to raise funds from their own resources it is open to them to do so. I know that local authorities over the years have taken all the easy options, but when times got hard they were very quick to come back and ask the Government of the day for money. They would ask the minister of the day to give the money for a project, but that is not the kernel of the issue. The kernel is that the money must be provided, whether it comes from central funds or from their own resources. At the end of the day the taxpayer has to pay. That is the bottom line.
I hate anyone standing up here, being hypocritical and talking about providing a service. They must spell out for me — and I asked this of my own councillors back home — if there is a better way of dealing with the estimate. Our estimate in Offaly County Council went through unanimously without amendment. As far as I and my party were concerned — and we are a minority there — if anybody disagreed with us we wanted them to tell us where the money was to come from. Local authority members today have many powers but, generally speaking, they take the easy option. They do not want to have the unpleasant task of putting extra expenditure on their own areas. That is their prerogative. I accept that it is the prerogative of every local authority to decide their priorities and to decide their expenditure, but if they come to the Minister for the Environment seeking more funds they must spell out for me where this money is coming from, because the Department have only one budget. The money is not there and I am not prepared to go down that road.
The Minister is the only one to bring this up.
The Senator cannot talk like that. She is talking to a man who has been a member of local authority for a long time and never took the easy option.
How long?
From 1967, and I never walked away from any issue. If anyone comes in here and tells me they want more cash they must say where it will come from and on what it will be spent. I ask the House to accept the amendment.
(Interruptions.)
There was nothing in my motion about securing higher levels of assistance. I simply said that the funds allocated should be maximised and put to effective use.
Senator Hederman and Senator Ryan, the proposers of this motion, are calling on the Government to sign and ratify the Council of Europe Charter of Local Self-Government. They are perfectly entitled to make such a proposal. The charter contains much that is praiseworthy. For example, it is designed to protect and strengthen local autonomy. This is a very desirable ambition. Where I mainly find fault with the proposers of this motion is that they seem to be suggesting that the system of local government in Ireland is somewhat inferior and that by adopting this charter major benefits will suddenly result for our local authorities and local communities. This is not the case. It is right and proper that we take a European wide view of things. the matters under consideration this week at the Maastricht Summit should serve to bring home to us the fact that our future lies in a wider European context. However, I can say without fear of contradiction that our local authorities can stand comparison with their counterparts throughout Europe.
The Minister referred to the Charter of Local Self-Government. It is the first legal statement at international level of standards and safeguards for local government. It includes a provision relating to a constitution on a legal basis for local self-government. It defines the nature and scope of local government and local authority powers. Further articles deal with the boundaries of local authorities, their administrative structures and staff conditions for the holding of local elective office. There are provisions dealing with the supervision of local authority activities and their financial resources. Other provisions include the right of local authorities to co-operate and form associations and the protection of local self-government by the right of recourse to a legal remedy.
Most Members of this House will agree that our local authorities have on the whole served us well over the years. Consider the essential services they provide, throughout the country, such as water and sanitation, and the wide range of amenities, like swimming pools, libraries and parks. Their contribution to economic and social development is enormous. Without the infrastructure which local authorities provide progress would be impossible. I hate to think what conditions would be like without the efforts made by local authorities over the years to meet people's housing needs. In recent times the local authorities have shown that they are capable of taking on new challenges, such as the protection of the environment and other functions referred to by the Minister.
There is a reference in the motion to Structural Funds. I am a bit lost as to what connection there is between the EC Structural Funds and the possible adoption of a Council of Europe charter. The Minister has dealt very fully with the question of the Structural Funds and left the House in no doubt as to the success we have achieved both in maximising the level of funding and putting it to the best possible use. There seems to be an implication in the motion that unless the Council of Europe charter is adopted, our local government system will be neglected. Nothing could be further from the truth.
It has been neglected.
The Minister has made it quite clear that the Government are fully committed to local government and that the proof of this is to be found in the action which they are taking to strengthen and develop the local government system. Nowhere is that commitment better personified than in the case of Deputy Connolly as Minister. He has always shown himself in this House and elsewhere to be a true friend of local government. I would like to compliment him for the manner in which he has dealt with this issue and for the very full account he has given to this House of the measures being taken by the Government in relation to local government.
I do not want to be seen as knocking the Charter of Local Self-Government, far from it, but many of its provisions correspond with the best features of our local government system. However, the key point, as stated by the Minister of State, is that the priority at this stage is to press ahead with the urgent job of local government reform which the Government have undertaken. The Minister has indicated in his speech that the Government are taking action which will bring major benefits to local government in Ireland. The key aims of the local government reform programme are to strengthen local democracy, to enhance the role of local authorities and to improve the system of local government. Local authorities must be accountable to their communities and be able to respond to their problems and needs. They must be in a position to encourage and support local action to improve their areas. The reform programme also aims to increase efficiency and gear the local government system to modern day needs. Local authorities must be able to deliver the services which the people need and they must give value for money in doing so.
I am glad to support the amendment.
Before I deliver my speech proper in supporting Senator Hederman's motion, I have to respond to the Minister's provocative and passionate address, but I will not respond in such a passionate way. I would like to put on the record that our local authority, Limerick County Council, passed their estimates, but the group who passed the estimates were Fine Gael-Progressive Democrats and the group who opposed were Fianna Fáil. When we did not get the minimal 3 per cent we expected in line with inflation in the rates support grant from the Department we had to go back again and look for another £310,000. I will run through the list of cuts to the community that the opposition members proposed because we wished to be constructive — cutting back members' expenses, increasing water rates, increasing the refuse tag, removing rent anomalies, but with a slight increase, abolishing our public lighting programme which means that there will not be a single light put up in 1991-92 by Limerick County Council. The sacrifices were made by the members, who had to sell the unpalatable to an already starved electorate. The Minister mentioned some councils going back to the Department of the Environment looking for more money, but our council were constructive and the reaction, the negative vibes and the running to the newspapers stating that Fine Gael were doing this, that and the other came from the Fianna Fáil group. To my mind, this was deplorable.
What we are talking about in this motion is the principle of subsidiarity. This phrase, like the Eurospeak we have day in, day out, is something which everybody holds dear, but obviously it is not being implemented. The principle of subsidiarity is the bedrock of European economic policy. At the last council meeting of public representatives in the Fine Gael group, this charter was adopted and a motion sent to the Minister asking him to have it signed. Likewise last month in Limerick County Council I again proposed that the council would write to the Minister asking that this document, which Senator Ryan says is not revolutionary — it is innovative but not revolutionary — be signed. The motion was also adopted by Limerick County Council and the County Secretary was asked to get in touch with all other local authorities in the country to ask them to put pressure on the Minister to sign this document.
It is interesting, and rather ironic I suppose, that at a time when Maastricht has taken place and when economic and social cohesion was on the agenda that here we are not committed to the objectives outlined in this European Charter of Local Self-Government, which is absolutely in tune with what the Taoiseach went to Maastricht to discuss. We are one of the very few, if not the only country, which has not signed or committed itself to it.
It is important to look at the preamble to this, because it sharpens our focus to what the charter states and we will see the inadequacies of the local government system in this country. If I were saying this before the Local Government Act, 1991, I would not be as pessimistic, but this Act has already gone through. Granted not all the reforms are implemented, but the Act and preamble to this document do not knit, there is no integration.
The preamble states:
Considering that the aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a greater unity between its members (This was obviously discussed in Maastricht yesterday) for the purpose of safeguarding and realising the ideals and principles which are their common heritage; considering that one of the methods by which this aim is to be achieved is through agreements in the administrative field; considering that the local authorities are one of the main foundations of any democratic regime; (and we really have to accept that) considering that the right of citizens to participate in the conduct of public affairs is one of the democratic principles that are shared by all member States of the Council of Europe; (I will go back to that again: the right of citizens to participate, certainly not at local authority level) convinced that the existence of local authorities with real responsibilities can provide an administration which is both effective and close to the citizen.
No wonder the Minister says we have to look at this over and over again and be cautious, because I am sure he is agreeing with me that local authorities have no real responsibilities. Therefore, we cannot even accept the preamble here.
Local authorities are as effective as they can be within the restraints of little finance and limited powers, but they are certainly close to the citizen, close to public representatives, but not consumer friendly or user friendly when it comes to access for the ordinary Mary or Jack on the street. The preamble continues:
Aware that the safeguarding and reinforcement of local government in the different European countries is an important contribution to the construction of a Europe based on the principles of democracy and the decentralisation of power; (We could have many discussions, debates and motions in relation to the lack of decentralisation.) Asserting that this entails the existence of local authorities endowed with democratically constituted decision-making bodies and possessing a wide degree of autonomy with regard to their responsibilities.
I could go on and on, but every single key word there is a word that certainly is not synonymous with local authorities and their effectiveness or their powers.
What we are really saying is that we would be ashamed if we signed it because we would not be fulfilling any of the requirements. Take the first section in relation to the Constitution: "The principle of local self-government should be recognised in domestic legislation and, where practicable, in the Constitution". The only reference in the Constitution that I could find in relation to the fact that we even exist is that four local authorities would have the right to nominate a presidential candidate. That is all in relation to local authorities and our Constitution. It is no wonder we do not have power when we are not even acknowledged in our Constitution and no wonder the Government are lethargic in relation to signing this.
As I read on and on I found I was getting more and more depressed. When I inquired from the Department of the Environment in relation to this motion 12 months ago I was told: there is a reason for it, but do not worry because it really relates to local government reform and when the Local Government Reform Bill is passed and becomes and Act there will be no problem because after that we will go ahead and sign this. That was the sort of idea given but that is totally in contradiction with what the Minister has told us here: that we must tread warily. I ask the Minister how long, how far have we to tread and how wary must we be, because the document is a very pleasant one, quite user friendly and quite a democratic document. I see nothing in the document to be alarmed about, not even to the point of idealism. It is basic, it is practical and it is in line with what we have been asked in relation to an integrated Europe and regional policy. I do not know what the hubbub is about. I think it could be signed tomorrow morning but I suppose we would have to implement it and the Government are very slow to implement what is being looked for there.
Nothing has changed in relation to the Local Government Act. I would implore the Minister of State to ask the newly appointed Minister for the Environment to get immediately to task to do something about having regional authorities in place as quickly as possible, because there is no doubt about it in relation to the 1993-1998 funds from Europe. Bruce Millan was in Limerick not so very long ago and he stated quite honestly that he was concerned the regions were missing out considerably in this country when we did not have access to funding from Europe. He more or less implied that if we did not get our act together some directive would come from Brussels stating in relation to the next tranche of Euro-funding that there might be a nice little turning of the screw in relation to ourselves, that we would have to have regional authorities in place to be able to get our direct funding. That is occupying the minds of everybody in this country at this moment.
Everybody except the Minister.
Again, we had a German MEP over who spoke in the Jean Monnet Theatre in the University of Limerick. He was quite an elderly gentleman, a man of great experience. He asked, quite honestly, in an excellent address: what is wrong with Ireland that it seems just to turn a blind eye to regional authorities having the power of direct access to Brussels for funding?
As a member of the subregional review, I would have to say that that regional review, which was set up to monitor funds and how they are spent, has an extremely competent and expert grouping of people on it. It is not as if you are throwing all these millions into regions and that they have not a clue or a notion as to what projects would be best served by the input of funding. You have county managers and city managers, you have public representatives, you have representatives of farming organisations, you have representatives of employers, you have representatives of trade unions, you have the integrated force of people at ground level who know absolutely what is needed in the mid-west. We do not have to ask individuals from various Departments, who are also on the sub-regional review and who feel quite pained at having to answer our questions. After all, they are only the arm of the Minister and all they can say at the end of the day is that this is what the Minister says. I know that their hearts are with us, but they know themselves that the proper way for having any distribution of funding is to put it back into the regions. For instance, in the mid-west region we had to bring up that we found it was extraordinary that we had a bit of Kerry and that the other bit of Kerry was in another region. How do you have a proper tourism policy for a county where one part is in one region and another part is in another region? There must be flexibility. It took the sub-regional review committee and local authority members to point out how ridiculous this is.
We have sub-regional review committees which close the door after the horse has bolted. They monitor the funds but they do not have any say as to where the funding should go. That is what we are talking about when we are talking about the principle of subsidiarity and giving citizens a voice. Communities are far more alert now than they were ten or 20 years ago. They are given programmes and understand the concept of self-help. They raise their own funds. However, at the end of the day, this is just tossed aside because the attitude adopted is that the individual and the local authority do not matter as the Government know best and the Minister for Finance will direct as he sees fit.
Acting Chairman
It is now 8 o'clock and I must ask the Senator to move the Adjournment.
The Minister is completely unmoved.
I know all about local authorities.
We never mentioned money. The Minister was the only one who mentioned money. I never mentioned money. Senator Brendan Ryan did not mention money. The Minister has a fixation about money because it is the only thing the Government are interested in.
When the Senator is as long in politics as I am she can talk.
I have been in politics for 17 years.
I will debate this anywhere. I have never seen a councillor who did not like nice things but always walked away from ugly things.
We never mentioned money.
I am too long in politics.
That is the trouble, sterile thinking.
It is not sterile thinking. I know what is right and what is wrong.
Immutably frozen.
We all know what is right and what is wrong. Councillors do what suits them.
Debate adjourned.