Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 28 Apr 1994

Vol. 140 No. 4

Local Government Bill, 1994: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr. Browne,

Wexford): In bringing the Local Government Bill, 1994 to this House, I am conscious that this is the third Local Government Bill being brought before the Oireachtas since 1991, as part of the ongoing process of legislative reform of local government. The present Bill, following on the Local Government Act, 1991, and the recent Dublin reorganisation Act, represent a further stage of the programme to overhaul the law, the structures and the general framework within which local authorities operate.

Local government reform is not about change for the sake of change, although consolidation of the law is badly needed. Its principal aim is to secure and strengthen the local government system, with special emphasis on the role of the elected members within that system. One of the essential requirements for this is to strengthen the local authorities themselves by broadening their power base and giving them greater flexibility and freedom of action. This Bill extends the frontiers of local authority power and discretion on several fronts, which I will refer to later.

The second critical factor in strengthening the local government system is to ensure that there are suitable and effective structures. We have already made significant progress in that regard with the reform of structures in the Dublin area and the creation of new regional structures. The Government have confirmed the position of the county councils as the primary units of local government. The one important component still to be fitted into the system is the modernisation of town local government, something that had been left to one side by several Governments who were unwilling to face up to the complex issues involved. One of the principal achievements of the present Bill is that it addresses this fundamental issue by providing a complete framework and mechanism for the reform of town local government.

Recent years have seen dramatic change — changes in society, in technology, in work, in development patterns — affecting cities, towns and rural areas. Everyone in this House is aware of the importance of our towns to the economic, social, commercial and educational life of their wider hinterlands. By the same token we are all conscious of the new pressures which social change over the past 30 years or so has brought about and which are particularly evident in urban areas.

The Government has been responding to these changes on a number of fronts, with a variety of measures ranging from major expenditure programmes on environmental protection, to the construction of by-passes, urban renewal schemes, new priorities for social housing, all of these measures creating employment and all contributing to the social and economic development of towns and their hinterlands. There have been significant changes and development at central and local government level, but the system of town local government itself has been largely left untouched. It is now timely to focus on town local government as part of the overall programme of local government reform and to address the democratic and administrative structures of towns.

As a first step, the Bill provides for the holding of town elections in June 1994. These will involve the election of members to five borough corporations, 49 urban district councils and 26 town commissioners, authorities which have not had elections since 1985. As already announced, the elections will take place on 9 June in conjunction with the European Parliament elections. However, the important point is that they will be held, not on the basis of outdated town boundaries, which have up to now excluded many residents from having a say in electing the council, but rather with the electorate enlarged to allow residents in the built up environs to participate in electing the authorities for those towns.

The Bill provides for the extension of boundaries for the purposes of the elections in the case of 56 towns listed in the Third Schedule. These boundary alterations will be put into effect under Part X of the Bill which provides specifically for implementation of proposals submitted by county managers following consultations with the county and town authorities concerned. The boundary extensions are being implemented on the basis of proposals agreed by the local authorities concerned.

As the law stands, the next elections to county and borough councils would be due in 1996. It is desirable to bring the timing of all local elections back into step, as had been the case before the postponement of the town elections in 1991. The Bill provides that elections to all authorities will next be held in 1998. I might mention here that the General Council of County Councils asked that this be put back to 1999. However, I believe that this would be too long. On the other hand, the holding of elections in 1996 would give the members elected at next June's town elections only a two year term. I feel that designation of 1998 as the next year of elections to all authorities strikes the best balance in this regard.

The elections are just the immediate issue. For the long term, town local government needs a modern and efficient administrative framework with a meaningful classification of authorities instead of the outdated and inadequate system which is now in place. At present there are 26 towns with town commissioners, set up under an Act which is over 140 years old and whose provisions are almost totally out of place in the modern era. Among them are some large and important centres, including county towns such as Mullingar and Portlaoise. Similarly, there are a number of very large centres of population, such as Dun-dalk, Bray, Tralee, Ennis and Athlone, which have local authorities of the same classification as places only a fraction of their size. In other words, their local authority classification does not appear to properly reflect their actual size and importance as major centres.

Population growth and development has very seriously outpaced local government structures in certain parts of the country with the result that places such as Celbridge and Maynooth, which have grown very rapidly over the past ten to 15 years, have no town local authorities whatsoever, although they are now far larger than many existing urban districts. These anomalies and other necessary reforms will be addressed as a matter of urgency in this Bill.

They will be addressed through the establishment of an independent local government reorganisation commission to carry out a review and make proposals for the reorganisation of local government in towns and for the implementation of such proposals. The commission will consist of up to seven members and must include elected councillors from both town and county authorities among its members. The task of the commission is to prepare and submit a reorganisation report containing proposals for town local government, including such matters as the number of classes of local authority; the role and functions appropriate to each class; financial, staffing and organisational matters in relation to each class; and the implications for county councils. The report will also contain proposals regarding the appropriate class for each existing town local authority; criteria and procedures for the creation of local authorities for non-municipal towns; and measures and arrangements for the implementation of reorganisation proposals.

The commission will have regard to all relevant factors, such as community identity and civic tradition; local capability; the need for effective and efficient discharge of functions and delivery of service; and the need to safeguard the position and capacity of the county councils as the primary units of local government. The Bill gives the reorganisation commission a clear mandate and a definite framework and makes specific provision for implementation of its proposals. There is no question, therefore, of solutions being imposed from the centre.

The commission will be obliged to go about its task urgently and there will be full and open consultation. The Bill specifically requires the commission to invite submissions from local authorities and to have regard to any submissions made to it. As is clear, the commission has been given a strong and unambiguous brief.

All of these provisions are evidence of a clearly defined approach in relation to the sub-county structure of local government. A major decision has been taken. The effect is to retain town local government as the sub-county structure of local government and to modernise and enhance it. An issue which many Governments have shied away from over a long period of years is now being resolved — an important milestone in the Government's structural reform programme for local government.

Since 1991, a policy of strengthening the powers of local authorities and giving them greater flexibility and freedom of action has been consistently followed. Removal of the “ultra vires” rule, relaxation of centralised controls on local authorities and devolution of functions in specific areas of operation such as housing and traffic are cases in point. The present Bill continues and extends this approach. For example, it provides for the removal of central controls which currently apply to local authorities in areas such as by-laws, parks, burial grounds and personnel matters.

The principle that the local authority is best positioned to decide local issues on its own initiative is similarly reflected in the creation, in Part VII of the Bill, of a new broad by-law making power which will enable the elected local authorities to regulate a variety of matters and activities where they consider this desirable in the interests of the common good of the local community, without the need for ministerial approval, sanction or consent. The same philosophy is also brought to bear in the provisions of Part VI, which provide flexible devolved powers for local authorities in the provision of various amenities and facilities. A scattered range of largely outdated provisions will be replaced by a modern, uniform code which will be concise yet comprehensive.

The Bill also deals with the modernisation and reform of local electoral law. Recent years have seen new legislation on Dáil and Presidential elections and referenda. As part of an overall programme of reform of the electoral law, it is now the turn of local elections.

Part II of the Bill contains updated and consolidated provisions in relation to local authority membership. Part III provides for the modification of the detailed procedures relating to local elections. Following this Bill, regulations to consolidate and modernise all the procedures at local elections will be brought before the Oireachtas for approval. In the process it is proposed to apply to those elections the many improvements in procedure which have been introduced for Dáil and Presidential elections in recent years.

The Bill also deals with the issue of the so-called dual mandate, which has been the subject of much comment lately. There is a body of opinion in favour of ending the dual mandate of local authority and Oireachtas membership, and it is well known that many local authority members would welcome changes in this regard as a means of enhancing the separate status of local authority membership. Equally, there is a body of opinion in favour of the retention of the dual mandate which stresses the importance of linkage between local and national government.

In most European countries it is by and large the standard practice on attaining a seat in the national parliament to resign from local government. This is in recognition of the heavy workloads attaching to participation in local and national government. However, there is another dimension to it, which is the recognition of the importance of local government as an administrative and political entity in its own right. The concept of separate membership is consistent with and complementary to the principle of enhancing the powers and discretion of local authorities as bodies with real responsibility for local matters, which is, of course, a major objective of the Government's local government reform programme.

Initial steps towards enhancing the separate status of local authority membership were taken in 1991 with the exclusion of Ministers and Ministers of State from membership. It is considered that an outright statutory prohibition would not be appropriate at this stage. Very few countries have such a prohibition and in addition an outright ban would cause inordinate discontinuity in local authority membership, given the existing high level of overlap.

However, the Bill does provide for the exclusion of a range of public office holders from local authority membership. These are the Ceann Comhairle of the Dáil, the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad, chairpersons of various Oireachtas Select Committees, members of the European Commission and other EU office holders and, arising from an amendment at Dáil Report Stage, Members of the European Parliament. Oireachtas Members will be disqualified from being a local authority chairperson or vice-chairperson, to be known incidentally as cathaoirleach and leas-chathaoirleach in future. These new exclusions will serve to further promote the concept of separate local authority membership. Together with the other changes in the law relating to qualifications for local authority membership, they will apply from the 1998 elections. Existing local authority members are not, therefore, affected.

I should point out here that it was against the background of recommendations in the Barrington Report, a Council of Europe Report, last year's Report of the Second Commission on the Status of Women and of the views of local authority members who are not Oireachtas Members, that an examination of the dual mandate was carried out. I would also like to record the fact that the General Council of County Councils has experienced agreement with the provisions of the Bill in this regard.

I would like to refer, briefly, to the provisions of the Bill which deal with the local authority library service, a service which is of inestimable value to the country with a unique impact on individual and community life, serving a wide range of needs, educational, recreational and cultural purposes as well as more specialised needs such as the ever increasing interest in local history and heritage. It is then important that such a service should have an up to date and flexible statutory base which enables it to respond to the diverse needs of individual communities and modern society.

Provisions in Part VI of the Bill will consolidate and modernise the law while at the same time strengthening and extending the library powers of local authorities, replacing a total of nine separate Acts dating as far back as 1855, largely archaic in form and restrictive in effect. In their place, streamlined provisions will be substituted which will include some important new elements, such as a provision for the adoption of library development programmes. There is also provision to allow the application of updated provisions to An Chomhairle Leabharlanna — the Library Council, a body which provides important library advisory and support services to the local authorities.

Members of this House will be aware of the Minister's announcement on Second Stage in the Dáil that additional funding of £2 million will be made available this year to the library service. This will give a valuable injection of funding for new book stock and assist the libraries in providing a higher standard of service to the public.

We have in the past number of years developed a new appreciation of the value of archival material. The level of public interest in the national archives and the appreciation of their particular value has stimulated an increased awareness of the importance of local archives. Accordingly, section 67 of the Bill contains a new provision relating to the keeping of local records and archives, modelled on the law applying to the national archives. There must be a priceless heritage of archival material all around the country deriving from the activities of our present local authorities and the bodies that preceded them. It is now appropriate to begin establishing a more formal system of archival protection and development. Accordingly the Bill provides for arrangements for the proper management, custody, care and conservation of local records and archives, and for inspection by the public.

I am hopeful that in coming years local authorities will put in place a phased programme for recording, conserving and making available for inspection the records of their own activities over the years. As a first step, modest funding will be made available to authorities to assist them in this task. This might be directed towards ascertaining what has been done to date in relation to local records and archives, what material exists in different areas, what the immediate priorities are and how a consistent programme of development could be put in place.

Part IV of the Bill contains provisions relating to the office of local authority cathaoirleach and leas-chathaoirleach which will, in future, be the official titles of the chairperson and vice-chairperson and were recently introduced for the new Dublin authorities. The titles of lord mayor and mayor will, however, continue to be used where they already exist, with a new statutory provision for deputy lord mayor and deputy mayor.

The existing law relating to local authority meetings is obscure, fragmented, inconsistent and well nigh impenetrable from the point of view of the ordinary councillor or the public. Part V provides for the making of regulations to introduce a modern and uniform code which will be beneficial to local authority members and officials and conducive to more efficient discharge of business. It should also make the workings of local authorities more understandable and accessible to members of the public. I should point out that there is no question here of the Department interfering in the workings of local authorities. What is in question is much needed reform which has been recommended as far back as the White Paper on local government reform in the early 1970s and more recently in the Barrington Report. I would also like to assure the Seanad that there will be full consultation with local authorities and the best existing practice will be followed.

While the Bill does contain some finance related provisions, these are mainly technical in nature and it is not a finance measure. Many Members may point to local authority finance as a major issue. Many different ideas have been floated on this question, often contradictory and unfeasible. What must be borne in mind is that in the reform of the local government system the first essential requirement is to get the issue of structures and functions right.

Ministers would always like to be able to provide higher levels of financial support for the services for which they are responsible and we in the Department of the Environment are no exception. However, it is a fact of life that all the competing demands on public funds cannot be met. The very harsh reality is that increased financing to local authorities can only be found by increased taxation or by cutting some other public service.

The estimated expenditure of local authorities in 1994 is £1.6 billion. Local authorities provide a huge range of services with a staff of 30,000 across the entire country. It is vitally important that these services are provided in an effective, efficient and economic way which will provide the best value for money for the taxpayer and ratepayer alike. My Department, in association with local authorities, has been looking at means of achieving higher levels of service for existing expenditures. Nowhere has this been more evident than in housing where local authorities have begun to adopt a more focused approach to the delivery of housing services. With the establishment of a value for money unit in my Department it is anticipated that a new focus on value for money can yield results in other areas of local government operation and thus lessen somewhat the pressures for increased funding.

As I said at the start, the objective of this Bill is to improve the position of local authorities. The whole thrust of the local government reform programme is to strengthen local democracy. With this in mind, the Minister has made some important changes to the Bill arising from contributions in the Dáil. For example, the Minister brought forward an amendment to put an end to the power of the Minister to postpone local elections by order — a power which was brought in by the Fine Gael-led Coalition Government in 1973. This is a further recognition of the status and significance of local government and yet another instance of this Government's willingness to remove the hand of central Government from the local government system.

A further important change brought forward by the Minister in the light of the Dáil debate is the decision to extend the list of exclusions for local authority membership to MEPs. This is further recognition of the importance of local government in its own right and of the status of local authorities as significant democratic institutions independent of central Government.

In five years time — in April 1999 — our county councils will be 100 years old. There will undoubtedly be great celebrations of the achievement of the local government system generally. It is my hope that this Bill in conjunction with other recent local government legislation and the significant improvement in powers and procedures in other specific codes of law, will go a major part of the way towards ensuring that local government has the structures and the capability generally to meet the needs of the diverse communities it serves in the towns, cities and counties.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. McDonagh

I welcome the positive aspects of this Bill. Regrettably, the Bill does not tackle the two fundamental problems of local government — the erosion of functions and the inadequate funding structure. The Bill does not increase the autonomy of local authorities but increases the power of the Minister to prescribe the manner in which local authorities do their work.

The General Council of County Councils welcomes the provisions in the Bill which relate to the council. It is the first statutory recognition of the important role of the council as a representative association. However, this Bill is a lost opportunity to do what is necessary to make local government more meaningful to people and more efficient in its operations. The role and functions to be allocated to national government and local government are not defined. The time has come for comprehensive restructuring of local government finance. Such restructuring must give priority to granting local authorities freedom from central control by way of flexible and autonomous sources of local finance.

During recent years there has been much talk about the need for reform. The discussion has continued since the Fianna Fáil/Progressive Democrat Government took office. There was a continual squabble over the sub-county tier during the term of that Government. Despite the long delay in the discussions since then little or no consultation has taken place with the two associations which would be involved most directly with the local government system — the General Council of County Councils and the Association of Municipal Authorities. After a prolonged period of waiting this Bill is being rushed through the Oireachtas without relevant consultation with the two local authority associations.

With regard to the devolution of functions, I am pleased that the Minister has set up the regional authorities and that the function of those bodies is promoting the co-ordination of the provision of public services in different areas. In line with the aims identified in the Government's proposals on reform published on 7 March 1991, the existing public agencies will lend their co-operation to the proposed regions. The regional authorities should be responsible for the co-ordination of all work at regional level involving EU Structural Funds. This function should be included in their remit.

Regrettably I must refer to a headline in my local newspaper, The Tuam Herald. The headline reads: “`Super Council' runs out of cash — five weeks on”. As a local authority representative I was embarrassed to see that headline. The article goes on to say that the west of Ireland super council — the much vaunted Western Regional Authority — following its inaugural meeting must ask the Minister for Finance, Deputy Bertie Ahern, to bail it out of an embarrassing cashflow problem. The funding that was provided is almost £80,000 less than is required to administer the authority this year. That is totally unacceptable. It is an embarrassment for local authority members and the council. Such a situation should not occur. If the regional councils are not funded adequately they should not be established.

To add insult to injury, many of the powers of the regional councils are being signed away to operational sub-committees comprised of non-elected personnel. We have heard about devolution of functions and more power for council members. However, what is emanating from the initial meetings of the regional councils does not give credence to the suggestions being voiced by the Minister and the Department of the Environment. I ask the Minister to redress that situation and to fund the councils properly. The elected members should be the key people within those structures and within sub-committees which might be established by the councils.

Since 1977 local government has, in effect, been strangled. A decision was taken in 1977 to fund local government from central taxation revenue. The problem is that this did not happen. Local authorities are in the impossible position of being expected to deliver services for which they do not have the money. The result is public dissatisfaction and a system that is antiquated and does not work. I must also refer to other ludicrous situations. I understood that local authorities were appointed a few years ago to be the agents or conduits through which national lottery funds would be distributed. However, although they may be the agents for distributing national lottery funds, they have not been given funds to distribute. This shows disregard and disrespect for the local authority system.

The appalling state of our roads is also ludicrous. The public is charged motor tax, heavy income tax and the unjust property tax, yet local authorities do not have the money to fill potholes or to carry out repair work on roads. Each year the county engineer in Galway reminds me of John the Baptist crying in the wilderness. He tells us clearly that he receives only a percentage of what is required to do a reasonable job on the roads. If something is not done soon about the roads in Galway - which are typical of roads in other counties — many of them will be beyond repair. Our county engineer and many other county engineers are left crying in the wilderness because the funding is not made available and our roads, particularly the county road network, are in a deplorable state.

At a conference in Donegal a few years ago I heard the then European Commissioner, Ray MacSharry, state that we, as public representatives, should call on the Minister to allocate 10 per cent of all money for primary road works to be spent on county roads. Many motions on this issue have been put to the Minister by the councils and the General Council of County Councils but we, like John the Baptist, have been left crying in the wilderness. John the Baptist had locusts and honey; the councillors and the Irish people are left with water and potholes.

Regrettably, the Bill does nothing to deal with the two central problems of local government — the roles and functions to be allocated to national and local Government and the proper financing of local government. Until the Government addresses these two issues, local government will continue to be seen as irrelevant and we will fail to realise the potential for growth and development in our society.

I wish to refer to the provisions in the Bill regarding the dual mandate. If the Government had the will and courage to move away from centralised government to an expanded role for local government it would be in the interest of democracy that those who serve as public representatives at local level would not be allowed to serve at national level and those serving at national level would not be allowed to serve at local level. My view is that the dual mandate should be removed and my party has no difficulty with its removal if a proper system of local government can be put in place, which would move away from the centralised system. If an expanded role for local government was brought into being no one would object to relinquishing the dual mandate.

Concern must be expressed about the future implications of the boundary extensions under sections 18, 19 and 20. These sections apply only for electoral purposes at present but it appears inevitable that extensions into the functional and financial areas will follow because of pressure on the local government reorganisation commission to rationalise the untenable position being created by those sections. This is the thin end of the wedge.

A properly representative and independent commission should be available to consider the matter before any extensions, including electoral extensions, are made. The General Council of County Councils wants sections 18, 19 and 20 deleted from this Bill and wants the June local elections to take place within existing boundaries, pending adequate and considered reorganisation.

Section 25 should also be deleted from the Bill. The Minister and the Houses of the Oireachtas should not have the power to defer or alter the timing of local elections. Every citizen has the right to elect public representatives to serve on local authorities and such elections should take place on a regular basis, at least every five years. The status of local authorities suffers because of the existence of ministerial and parliamentary powers to alter indefinitely the dates of local elections.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): That section has been deleted from the Bill.

Mr. McDonagh

I am delighted to hear that and I commend and thank the Minister for doing so. As he said earlier, the local government system will be 100 years old in 1999. Perhaps all elections should be synchronised in that year, although the Minister may intend to give special significance to local elections by holding them the previous year. Nonetheless, synchronising all local elections in 1999 would make that a special year and add significance to the centenary celebrations.

In expressing concern about section 32, I echo the General Council of County Councils which is worried about Part V of the Bill. Section 32 is extremely undemocratic and exposes local authorities to severe over-prescription by the Minister for the Environment in every aspect of its meetings and procedures. If local government is to survive this section must be removed.

Although this provision is presented as part of a consolidation process, it is more concerned with giving the Minister additional draconian power over local authorities, under which he can regulate all aspects of their affairs, including what matters may or may not be discussed and considered by local authorities. It must be remembered that local authorities are comprised of democratically elected representatives of the people and must be free to act in the interests of their communities without the severe restrictions provided for in this section.

The Minister shows a lack of confidence in county councillors, who are the foot soldiers or the poor relations of the Irish political system. These men and women carry the flag and take the flak at local level. They are on call seven days a week; Ministers, TDs and Senators can escape by being up to four days a week in Dublin on parliamentary business.

We talk of devolution of power, better conditions and more power for councillors to let them become masters of their own destiny. I must question whether the Minister is serious in that intention because the Bill does not show it; on the contrary, it is a further degrading of councillors' rights. The Minister wants to impose his hand on county council meetings by fixing the agendas and setting the rules. There is a touch of the headmaster here; county councillors will be allowed some leeway but the Minister will have the final say.

Councillors are still perturbed and dissatisfied at the recent capping of county councils. The implementation of that measure left a sour taste in the mouths of local authority members — one need only ask councillors in Cork and Dublin. The imposed capping arrangements have greatly interfered with our working schedule as councillors. The Minister should not add to the disquiet in the rank and file by implementing section 5 of the Bill. It is an unwanted intrusion into local authority affairs, which further gags and limits the progress of the nation's councillors.

Councillors should be allowed to devise their own initiatives and set their own agendas. These are men and women of great integrity, who carry the can for Oireachtas Members. They should be given the recognition they deserve. The Minister should not let councillors down, he should give them a vote of confidence by deleting section 5. I hope he will consider doing so.

I welcome the granting of power to local authorities to make by-laws under sections 34 and 38. However, these are severely marred because ministerial approval is needed and powers of revocation are included. These restrictions should be removed. In County Galway I sat on a review committee of the Department of the Environment. We made several suggestions about by-laws, one of which pertained to speed limits. Mr. Kevin Cullen from the Department was involved with us. We worked hard and made important decisions.

Several suggested by-laws were passed, one of which pertained to speed limits. I thought a decision on speed limits could be made at local level. However, a speed limits committee meeting was held ten months ago in Galway County Council where we made decisions about the siting and resiting of speed limits. After approving the changes, we were told they had to be approved by the Minister. We are still waiting for the Minister's decision; this is disappointing to say the least.

Section 48 provides for grants by the Minister to local authorities. The minimum grant should equal the amount which would now accrue under local authority rates and all agricultural hereditaments, before and after the major rating changes for such hereditaments were payable at current poundage rates. This section reinforces the current position, which is that the Government has reneged on its commitment to fully replace the loss of revenue to local authorities arising from its decision to abolish rates on domestic properties and not to resolve the problems associated with the rating of agricultural lands.

In relation to section 65, either an independent commission or the individual local authority and not the Minister may determine the boundaries of the local electoral division. I will refer to the other sections of the Bill on Committee Stage when I hope to introduce a number of amendments. I welcome the Minister to the House and I hope he will respond positively to my suggestions.

Mr. D. Kiely

Under this Bill the Cathaoirleach will be leaving the local government system. I will be sorry to see him go, but I wish him well in the future.

An Cathaoirleach

There are still four years left.

Mr. D. Kiely

I am sure you will still keep an eye on us.

I welcome the Minister to the House and I am pleased with his detailed account of this new Bill. Members of local government are concerned about parts of this Bill, but when it is explained in detail it clears the air. Many parts of this Bill must be welcomed, including the part where towns, which have a population of more than 3,000, may now form new authorities. We have wanted this for decades.

Senator McDonagh mentioned the rates support grant and the abolition of rates in 1977. I would remind him that his party was in power from 1973 to 1977 and it proposed the abolition of rates in 1975-76. Part of its manifesto in 1977 was to abolish rates completely if it was returned to power. I would not try to use that as a red herring because this was first proposed by the Senator's party.

Mr. McDonagh

Who abolished them?

Mr. D. Kiely

People ask central Government for everything. You never miss the water until the well runs dry, and some day the well will run dry. Local authorities should provide their own finances instead of asking central Government for money all the time.

I come from a poor county and when rates were abolished the local authority introduced service charges, which few other counties did. Many people who are now complaining did not introduce charges to maintain their county's infrastructures, including water services, sanitary services, housing services, etc. Kerry County Council was not found wanting and it voted for increased charges, which was unpalatable at that time. Between 1983 and 1987 my party voted in favour of service charges during the Fine Gael led Coalition Government. Now my party is in power on the council, but Fine Gael is voting against all the charges because they are too high. My party is not afraid to put the county first and the people respect it more as a result.

Many complaints are made about the road conditions in every county. The Minister knows they are in a deplorable state and that something must be done. Some £101 million has been allocated to local authorities this year and this is the largest figure given to local authorities since the foundation of the State. Over £1 billion will be spent on our roads over the next five to six years and this must be welcomed. However, it must be properly spent and not squandered, as happened over the last number of years, by throwing gravel on the roads. When a pothole is filled, the structure around it disintegrates. We need to introduce a four or five year programme so that we get value for money. If a two or three mile stretch of county road needs to be repaired, each mile should be given a proper foundation over a three or four year period so that the road network will be improved. If people believe the roads can be repaired overnight, they should go back to Europe and collect the money which every other country is receiving.

When I was chairman of the General Council of County Councils in 1985, 1986 and 1987 I attended a meeting of the Engineering Industry Association. The chairman of the association said that since 80 per cent of all traffic was on the eastern seaboard, 80 per cent of the money should be spent in that area. I said I agreed with him, provided the foundations in County Kerry were the same as those in the east. Most of the roads on the Western seaboard are built on bogs. The roads infrastructure must be improved and money must be spent to maintain them. One large articulated truck can do more damage to a bad road in County Kerry than 5,000 cars could do in one day if the foundations are not in place. County managers also have a role to play because they must stop squandering money by throwing tar on the roads; they must use this money properly.

Ten years ago I tabled a motion at a Kerry County Council meeting which stated that road works should be done by private enterprise because we would get better value for money. Now the primary routes are being put out to tender. One would be amazed at the way tenders fluctuate between one contract and another; I am talking about millions of pounds, and this is happening in my own county, particularly on the primary routes.

Senator McDonagh said that at a conference we attended in County Donegal some years ago Mr. Ray MacSharry spoke about taking 10 per cent off the Structural Funds. I, with other colleagues, met Mr. Bruce Millan recently at an inter-parliamentary meeting in Brussels. He informed us that all Structural Funds could be used on any road needed for tourism or industry. This means almost every road in County Kerry would qualify. Perhaps we could use some of the money allocated to the national primary routes for such roads. Recently the Minister asked the councils to make submissions for funding of non-national routes. This is important because we would then be able to use the discretionary grant on county roads which are badly in need of repair, provided that the money is properly invested.

People have criticised local government for a number of years and one would think we did nothing. I have been informed by the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Smith, and the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Deputy Stagg, that £162.7 million will be spent this year on local authority housing and corresponding allocations for 1993 will be increased by £70 million or 75 per cent and this must be welcomed. The following money is being made available: £132 million for local authority housing; £2.5 million for improvement works in lieu of local authority housing; £3.5 million for residential caravan parks for travellers; £20.7 million for remedial work for local authority dwellings and £4 million for local authority houses without bathrooms.

A lot of work has been done over the years, including repairs to local authority housing. Various grants are available, including the central repair grant, disabled persons grant and grants to repair windows, doors, etc. People are always asking for the reintroduction of the reconstruction grant introduced by the Coalition Government in 1987. The then Minister for the Environment, Mr. John Boland, introduced the new reconstruction grant. This was one of the best grants introduced in this country. While I praise him for introducing this grant, he forgot to provide the £210 million required to do the job. The Government which came to power in 1987 had to pick up the pieces and clean up the mess made from 1987 to 1989.

Mr. Howard

He expected to be still there.

Mr. D. Kiely

It is a mistake to anticipate such things. It is easy to announce schemes involving large amounts of money but one must have finance to back it up.

This Bill will bring vast improvements. I am delighted section 25 has been deleted. I did not know the public could not attend council meetings, but section 32 gives permission for deputations to attend and to put their case to the council. Under section 36 the Government will provide an additional £2 million for school books and this is welcome. Section 46 gives the Minister power to remove from office members of a local authority. Approximately 6,000 council and AGM meetings have been held since the foundation of the State. On only four occasions has the Minister abolished local authorities because they did not do their job properly. If people want proper services, including water and sanitary services and roads, they must put their money where their mouth is and the council must ensure they do so when striking rates or increasing water charges.

In County Kerry four new sewage schemes are in operation. When I was Chairman of Kerry of County Council I had the honour of signing three contracts for sewage schemes in Ballybunion, Killarney and Tralee which are now complete. Four new sewage schemes are in operation in Killorglan, Kenmare, Cahirciveen and Dingle. However, we must get the capital cost from the Government which provided a 100 per cent grant for the sewage plants in those towns. Who will pay for the maintenance of these plants? The people asked for these services for many years and now we have them they must pay and pay to maintain them. That is what Government is about. If the people are willing to share the cost, the Government will facilitate them in every way.

I thank the Minister for coming to the House today. This is the third Bill introduced by the Department since 1991 and it is a step in the right direction. I am pleased — all sides of the House agree on this — that the Minister will not have the power to abolish elections the holding of which will now become more uniform. The last urban district council elections were last held nine years ago. Many people who ran for election nine years ago have been buried but many others were re-appointed.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

They will be more than buried on 9 June.

Mr. D. Kiely

I agree. We should have local elections more often than every nine years. Those elected could become complacement and might not serve the people properly if they knew they would be in office for a nine year term. Local representatives should be kept on their toes at all times. I welcome the fact that local elections will be held in 1998. I do not agree with my colleagues on the other side who said these elections should be held in 1999 in order to bring them in line with the European elections. Local government should do its own thing. Again, I welcome the Minister and the Bill to the House.

Mr. Howard

I extend a warm welcome to the Minister. He is an able Minister and he has been a gentleman in all my dealings with him. I emphasise that because I want to absolve him in advance of some of my criticisms to the manner in which this Bill was presented. I extend that absolution to the Leader of the House, Senator Wright, because I know he holds this Parliament in the highest regard. It would not be of his making that this legislation would be presented before the House in this manner. I would like to confirm a point made by Senator Kiely. I also attended the meeting with Bruce Milan, Commissioner for Regional Policies. The Commissioner indicated that rural roads with tourisms potential and value qualified for aid under the Structural Funds.

This is major legislation which is also complicated. In normal circumstances it would require careful and lengthy consideration by all of us as legislators. I would like to put into context the size and importance of this legislation. The Bill comprises 59 pages with approximately 70 sections. If two sections have been removed, I do not whether the Bill now contains 68 or 69 sections because I did not have time to read it. There are 11 Parts and five Schedules. Some 77 enactments dating from 1840 have been repealed or orders or regulations revoked; 11 enactments have been amended, while 95 Acts of Parliament are referred to in this legislation. Irrespective of the merits of the Bill — and there are some merits — I protest because I find the method by which it was presented to the Seanad highly offensive.

We are told there are time constraints and that consideration of all Stages of the Bill must be completed by tomorrow. Amendments will be tabled from this side of the House. I hope they will be debated, but in view of what we heard this morning the Minister cannot accept these amendments because there is no time to go back to the Dáil to endorse them if accepted. In addition, there is also a Motion for Earlier Signature.

This is a clear example of the Government treating the Upper House as a necessary nuisance in the passage of legislation. We are debating this Bill in circumstances which can only be objectively described a shame. The Minister cannot and will not accept amendments because of what has been indicated by the Motion for Earlier Signature. This Bill is before the House because the Government is constitutionally obliged to bring it in and it will use its majority to ram it through. No matter how convincing an argument I or any other Member of this House might make here, no matter what weaknesses we identify in this legislation, the House is denied the opportunity to respond effectively in these circumstances. The Government attitude is that they and they alone know what is best and the Minister is here in his official capacity this morning solely because he is constitutionally obliged to be here.

I believe in the dignity and integrity of the Seanad and I strongly object to any Government treating it as an irrelevancy. I believe it would be totally ignored were it not for the constitutional obligation which requires the Government to come in here. I am satisfied that the defence of the integrity of this House is shared by parties on all sides. We had a perfect example here last evening. I wish to give honourable mention to both Senator Mooney and Senator Roche on their objective contributions to the Irish Shipping Bill and the manner in which they were prepared to put pressure on their own Minister to respond to a perceived weakness in the Bill.

Local authorities and the members who compose them have a special relationship with this House. We, the Members of the Seanad, have a special obligation to be responsive to their views and representations and to give expressions to their views and representations in so far as we can on issues such as this. Because of the way the Government has brought the Bill in here, because of the time frame imposed by the Government on the Seanad, worthwhile discussion on the Bill is impossible. The General Council of County Councils made a submission to the Minister on 21 April and there are 14 recommendations in that submission dealing with 32 sections in the Bill. Perhaps the amendments made by the Dáil yesterday respond in some part to them. They have sought a number of amendments, changes and improvements which they believe are necessary.

We must recognise that the members of the General Council of County Councils are the elected representatives and they work daily, as Senator Kiely and Senator McDonagh said, on behalf of their constituents. Their views are now to be ignored. The Minister will make no attempt to listen or take them on board. Their concerns are the concerns of this House. The Minister produced this Bill on 6 April. It went to the Dáil on 27 April and he wants all Stages through the Seanad in two days. If there is cynicism about politics and politicians, and about this House in particular, nothing will reinforce that cynicism more than the manner in which this House has been treated by the Government today.

It may appear that I am spending a long time on this issue. I know that what I am saying will not be effective in relation to this provision, but I believe that if I make a big enough issue of what has been happening here today, it may have a positive effect down the road in relation to the presentation of other legislation and the way this House is treated by the Government. I have only a few minutes of my time left to deal with the Bill but I hope to deal further with it on Committee Stage.

Additional restraints are included in section 6 of the Bill and they represent a growing interference in the right of the citizen to freely elect the person of their choice. I may be out of step with my own party on the dual mandate but in relation to issues that were raised in the other House yesterday regarding the position of ministerial advisers, total and free democracy requires that the citizen should be entitled to elect as his representative whoever he decides should occupy that position. Once that right is interfered with, basic democracy is being interfered with, and I am simply making that point. Section 32 — I do not believe this was amended in the other House yesterday — is a battery of regulations and prescriptions from the Minister which further constrains the freedom of local authority members to serve their people through their councils.

Centralised bureaucracy and central control have stifled local authority development for years. Instead of releasing control, the Minister is increasing further his Department's control over the freedom and functions of local authorities. There are a number of other sections — sections 28 to 45, inclusive, but notably section 32 — which empower the Minister to regulate and prescribe on so comprehensive a scale that in my view the freedom and authority of local councils in unjustifiably constrained. I deeply regret that the Upper House of the Oireachtas is today being denied the right to constructively debate and amend this Bill and I want to register that protest in the strongest possible manner.

Ms Kelly

I welcome the Minister to the House and I welcome this Bill as a major piece of reforming legislation in the area of local government. It is vitally important that such legislation should be brought in now and that the structures and procedures of local government be thoroughly examined and brought up to date. As Senator Howard pointed out, over 90 different Acts covering a wide variety of topics are referred to in this legislation. I agree to a certain extent with Senator Howard when he says that we really have not been given a great deal of time to debate this Bill. I know many county councils would have liked a longer period to examine this legislation to see how it impacts on their day to day operations, but the time constraints are there and there is nothing we can do about it. We must do the best we can with the Bill within the constraints imposed on us.

The Bill is very comprehensive and brings many areas that were unclear in local government legislation into focus, for example, qualifications for membership of a local authority and what would disqualify a person from being a member of a local authority. I ask the Minister to comment on the phrase "corrupt practice" in section 6 (1) (n) (ii) on page 11, line 33: a person can be disqualified from, holding membership of a local authority for corrupt practice. I wish to know what exactly is meant by "corrupt practice" because to my way of thinking that can take in many different areas. The Minister might elaborate on Committee Stage on what is meant by the phrase "corrupt practice".

On the issue of the dual mandate I am guilty. I would not be in this House today but for the fact that I was also a member of a local authority. I cannot see a conflict between my role as a Senator and my role as a county councillor. One role complements the other. I can see where office holders like yourself, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, might find that your duties here and your duties outside this House would affect your ability to perform.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I assure the Senator I have no difficulty.

Ms Kelly

Of course, the Leas-Chathaoirleach has a body of willing and able people who will substitute for him in the Chair. There can perhaps be occasions when he cannot operate bilocation and be here and in Roscommon at the one time. Therefore, there could be conflict. From the point of view of the role of the Seanad in looking at legislation, our experience at local level is vital. If we lose that grassroots contact, if we are not in daily contact with people at local level, when it comes to examining legislation in this House we could become legalistic or, as it were, airy-fairy. The ability to relate to the person at local level is our chief contribution in this House. The link between what goes on locally and what happens here should be maintained.

It is debatable if it should be maintained in the other House, because as it sits longer hours and its Members have entitlements to sit on committees which we do not have, and they have other powers and duties that we do not have. Our powers here are limited. It is vital to have this link between the Seanad and the local level.

A part of the Bill which I welcome is the freeing up of libraries. The provision of the library service is one of the most undervalued and unrecognised but most important aspects of local authority work. It is an area we ought to examine in greater detail, because we can reach out to our communities in a vital way through the library system. The report Developing the West Together, which we discussed recently, contained an exceptionally good idea — the creation of the rural enterprise centres. It struck me that the provision of a library service and of these information and enterprise centres in rural areas could be combined.

Local libraries should not just act as places to borrow a book; they should be seen as information centres. They should be equipped with all the modern means of access to information. All libraries — even the smallest libraries — should be linked up via existing computer technology to the vast computer network that now exists between our universities and regional colleges. Whether one is in the remotest part of the west or in the centre of Dublin, one should be able to go into a library and access sources of information and do research. It is only by co-ordinating the services already there and by building on them that we can improve the lot of people all over the country. Particularly in years to come, information and new technology will be as important to a person setting up a small industry in rural Ireland as to a student in university. This Bill will give the libraries freedom to expand their role.

The Bill also makes much of the role of the local authority as an agent for archives. It is perhaps one of the country's greatest disgraces that we have let so much valuable archival material disappear and disintegrate. I live in Newcastlewest and the town once had a town commissioners which held meetings in its early days. The minutes of those meetings were written out in script and the book containing them is now in private ownership. It should not be, but I do not blame the person who possesses that book because if they had not salvaged it from an outhouse it would not exist at all. At least it has been saved. The book has been given to an archivist who has copied it onto microfiche, so that there is a record of it.

It is, however, an indictment of the carelessness with which records have been neglected. The book could just as easily have fallen into the wrong hands. The person who has the book cares about local history and maintains the books as a record. He has assured me that when a suitable opportunity arises he will return it to the proper authorities. Until he is assured that it gets a proper home he will hold onto the book. How much more material has been lost through no provision being made to preserve it? Simply because nobody has responsibility for something it is not seen as important unless somebody has a specific interest in local history, for example. Perhaps 100 years worth of archival material is scattered around the country without being put on record.

I welcome the provision in the Bill for the Local Government Reorganisation Commission. As Senator Kiely mentioned, towns of over 3,000 inhabitants will now have the opportunity to have a local authority. Anybody studying the history of local government would see that there are anomalies in that there are towns with large populations which no urban representation, and towns which are little more than villages which have a town authority. This is important, given that the shift in Ireland has been from the rural to the urban.

Towns have a life of their own which has to be regulated in some fashion. Matters which are of vital importance to somebody living in a town or village may not be seen as important in a global sense to a county council, for example. The sitting of a street light, for instance, can be of immense importance in a town for the safety and welfare of its inhabitants. Yet if one brings it up as an issue at a county council meeting it is seen a seen as being parochial. It is as important to the people living in the street as the repair of a five or ten mile stretch of road in the countryside.

As a town dweller, I would like to see far more attention paid to our towns. Many of our towns and villages are falling into decay. Unless one lives in one of the lucky larger towns which has got permission to have urban renewal schemes, it is difficult for people in towns to carry out the major renovation work needed in many towns. Our towns have a particular character and everything should be done to maintain that. That will have to be organised, resourced and promoted. It was the fashion many years ago to move out to the suburbs. While there are long lines of bungalows stringing out from our towns, their centres are simply falling apart or are occupied by old people who cannot out of their own resources restore the interior of the town, and this badly needs to be done. A local town authority will have the motivation and the resources to carry out much of this work.

I am unhappy with section 30 of the Bill. I strongly ask the Minister, before he makes a single regulation, to invite each local authority to submit their views on all aspects of the matter. Full and total consultation would have taken places with each local authority and the regulations, when they are introduced, would then reflect their views. The regulations should be so variable as to take account of the various needs of different county councils. They represent areas which differ in terms of geography, agriculture, wealth and activity within the county. What is good for County Leitrim may not necessarily be right for County Limerick. I ask the Minister to consult with the local authorities before he imposes on us what he considers to be right. Authorities should first be given the chance to say what they think.

Few Senators have paid much attention to section 62. I am interested in this section because it refers to the town in which I live. If there had been more time available, I would have insisted on an amendment to this section, which states that "The Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854, ("the Act of 1854") shall cease to apply to the relevant areas referred to in subsection (4)." I would have liked to have seen "shall" changed to "may". It is removing from towns like Callan, Fethard, Newcastle West, Rathkeale, Roscommon and Tullow the need to have a separate rate and account struck.

Many ratepayers in Newcastle West may be delighted with this measure because the removal of the town rate will mean they will have to pay less rates. However, the town rate fulfilled an important function. It was used to maintain property that was given to the town. Under this section, that property becomes the ownership of the county council. The county council is not the enemy of the town or is this perceived to be the case, but there is a feeling that one should look after their own. We could order the priorities for the spending of money within the town when it was available. Newcastle West may be one of the towns that will gets its own town authority under the Local Government Reorganisation Commission; it is currently around the 3,000 mark. Therefore, we may lose on one hand and gain on the other, but I would see it as a backward step.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

You have gone over your allotted time, Senator.

Ms Kelly

This Bill is most welcome, despite its few areas of criticism.

Ms Honan

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Local Government Bill, but I am disappointed with it. I was amazed to hear the Minister say in the other House that this Bill was a Major measure of reform. I feel it is totally inadequate legislation, doing nothing more than restating existing law in modern language. It cannot be called local government reform, as it will not reform our current outdated and totally underfinanced local government system.

The Bill provides for the elections to town commissions and urban district councils to take place this year. These elections have not taken place since 1985. They have been postponed on four separate occasions. The reason given each time for this was that a total reform of the local government system was on the way. Is this the reform we have been waiting for so long? The only proposal of any significance in it is the extension of the boundaries in some towns, but there are many areas in this country with substantial populations which have no authority at this level. One of these towns is my own town of Portarlington. The people there are entitled to representation at this level. It is not acceptable. We were led to believe that changes would be made in this area, but again we have been disappointed.

It seems the Government is not willing to devolve power down to local authorities. It is totally opposed to the principle of subsidiarity in Ireland, although it supports it in Europe. When the Maastricht Treaty was passed in the recent referendum, its main principle seemed to be that of subsidiarity. Both the Government and every Member in this House seemed to be in favour of it, believing that when one is looking at certain issues one should come down to local level as far as possible. I cannot understand how the Government can support this principle within Europe and totally ignore it at home.

Are we not going to allow local communities to have a more meaningful role in the running of local affairs? The Government is not responding to the call to do this from local communities. Countries like Denmark have responded to that call. When I became a member of Laois County Council at the last local elections, there was a one day seminar from the Institute of Public Administration on various aspects of local government. We also discussed various systems of local government in other countries. One of the systems held up as an example there was the one prevailing in Denmark. Most of us felt it to be a good systems and far superior to our one. Indeed, I would like to be associated with such a system because it would greatly benefit the vast majority of our people. Under it, a local representative would have the power to provide the service and facilities needed in the local area which the people wanted then to provide and, most importantly, they would have the money to do it.

In 1983, the Financial Provisions Act removed the statutory obligation on any Government to provide funds to local authorities in lieu of the money which they would have collected had rates on houses continued to be implemented. Once that obligation to adequately fund the local authority system was removed, the system began to deteriorate rapidly. In my home County of Laois, for instance, since the rate support grant was abolished, the local authority has lost over £20 million in funding. This has understandably led to a major deterioration in the many services it has been able to provide, especially the maintenance of county roads.

All Members of this House and the other House are aware of the changes to the funding of local authorities which must take place. In recent years there have been local charges in various areas of the country which have resulted in much opposition. In addition, there have been the recent changes in the residential property tax and the furore which this caused, especially in Dublin. Given the high level of personal income tax and other taxes on employment in this country, people have a low level of disposable income. It is therefore unrealistic to implement a local tax, whether on property or otherwise, until there is a major reform of the tax system giving people more disposable income after the Government has taken their taxes from them.

If there was a reduction in central taxes, local communities would be prepared to pay a local government tax which would fund the local authorities adequately; but they are not prepared continue putting their taxes into the central Exchequer only to have this Exchequer give less and less to the local authorities and then request these same people to fund the authority. In view of this there is a need for major reform in this area which the Minister has failed to address in the Bill.

Local government is in a mess because of the lack of funds. The local authorities have little discretion over what they may or may not do locally. They have, supposedly, certain powers and functions, but their ability to carry out these function is severely limited due to restriction in funding available. In this respect it is reasonable to believe that local authorities could have expected an increase in funding from the Government in line with inflation over the years. However, the opposite has happened since 1983 and every year the rate support grant has reduced.

People are angry about the inability of local authorities to deliver on the level of services which they have come to expect. The deterioration of the county road structure is due to the neglect of successive Governments to provide adequate funding and there is an abdication of the Government's and the Minister's responsibility in this area.

People want a system of local government that provides sufficient services, good roads and local authority housing which is properly maintained. The Government must be aware of the willingness of people to work voluntarily to improve their own areas. These people want the local authorities to work and support the voluntary effort of community organisations, which is most desirable. However, most local authorities have little funding to do this and, as a result, many community organisations are becoming totally frustrated with their local authority.

In this regard, many do not understand, for example, how the rate support grant has deteriorated so rapidly and how authorities have such little funding compared to 1983. For example, in my own area Laois County Council spent £1 million pounds on the county roads. In order to undertake the same level of repairs and maintenance today the county council would need to spend approximately £2 million, yet it is not even spending a quarter of that amount. In view of this there is no way that the county council can maintain the roads and keep them at the standard they were at in 1983.

There was major expectation of reform in this area, and this Bill represents the last opportunity to provide that reform. All our expectations, which have been raised, are now shattered. Everybody agrees that there should be reform. In this respect the Minister has referred to his commitment to local government reform. In view of this may I ask why is this reform not happening?

The distribution of the rate support grant has concerned many local authorities. It is distributed on an ad hoc basis and the amounts given to each local authority are decided by the Minister. In recent years there have been recommendations regarding this issue and a report by the Institute of Fiscal Studies which illustrated that there was a major difference in the amounts allocated to local authorities. May I ask the Minister why is he not introducing reform in this most important area? Many local authorities believe that they are being treated unfavourably compared to others and unless there is a fair system of allocating the grant many are going to remain dissatisfied.

There is also a provision in the Bill regarding estimates. It is my understanding that the Minister can now, by order, change the estimate the local authority has struck if he considers it to be insufficient. This is giving the Minister the power to adopt the estimates for local authorities, which is unacceptable. The local authorities believe the Government is starving them of funding while at the same time the central Exchequer continues to take people's taxes and return less and less to the local authorities.

In Denmark two thirds of all Government expenditure is spent at local government level whereas the approach in this country is to retain financial control with the Government. We appear to be terrified to devolve any powers or any authority to people underneath us.

Under the provisions of the Bill various Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas are prevented from being members of local authorities. Many of the provisions in this respect are ludicrous. If all Members of the Oireachtas were debarred from membership of local authorities, the Minister would be creating a real distinction between the role of the Government and local government. However, the Minister is excluding some people from local authority membership who would never take up such positions in the first place and he is then selecting certain Members of this House and the other House for exclusion. The Minister must decide whether or not he wants a total distinction between local authority representatives and representatives sitting in the Houses of the Oireachtas. He cannot proceed on this issue in a half measured way.

I was a member of the Second Commission on the Status of Women. One of the recommendations of its report was the abolition of the dual mandate. I recall that when I was elected to the House, the chairperson of the commission wrote to me asking me if I was going to resign from Laois County Council. This would be acceptable if it was a rule that all Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas would resign in this way, but it would be most difficult to do so under present circumstances.

However, it is also difficult for Members to carry on an effective role in both Houses of the Oireachtas. In this respect the report of the Second Commission on the Status of Women said:

In the view of the Commission a dual mandate, spanning Dáil and European Parliament, or much more prevalently, spanning Dáil/Seanad and local authorities, is too demanding in terms of the time commitment and workload required from any individual and presupposes the input of a subordinate spouse.

The report was inferring that many men could become Members of the Dáil or the Seanad and maintain their membership of local authorities because they had a wife at home who was undertaking many functions and enabling them to partake in the House of the Oireachtas, but many women do not have the luxury of this.

The report of the commission also takes the view that abolition of the dual mandate would enable many individuals, including more women, to participate as political representatives and that this would be a healthy development for democracy. In this respect also, entry to local politics is not only significant in itself but also as a proving ground for national politics and for people to proceed to the Houses of the Oireachtas.

I agree with the proposal to abolish the dual mandate, but only if it was made obligatory to all. It is most difficult for individuals to operate one system when the majority of their colleagues operate a different system. My colleague, Deputy Molloy, referred to this matter in the other House. He said that if the dual mandate system did become mandatory and a member of a local authority had to resign his or her seat on becoming a Member of the Dáil or Seanad, that individual should have the right to nominate his or her successor, or, in order to overcome the conflict that will arise, there should be an adoption of a procedure similar to that pertaining for the European elections where there is a list system.

Many of the matters I wish to refer to can be addressed on Committee Stage with amendments which my party will put down. On the issue of the reorganisation commission, the Minister spoke of this as being independent; however, he is to make all the appointments to it. Given this, I am unable to understand how it can be independent. In recent years the Government has agreed to appoint people chosen by organisations nominated by it. This is a much fairer system. This Bill does not provide for local government reform. It only allows the local elections to take place this year on the basis of revised boundaries. It is frustrating and disappointing the expectations of many people who have expected so much and are getting so little.

Mr. Farrell

Ar dtús ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an Aire go dtí an Teach seo agus cuirim fáilte roimh an Bille seo. Tá sé an-tábhachtach. It is long overdue. For the last ten years or so we have had attempts at local government reform by various Ministers. The present Minister has taken the bit between his teeth and done something about it. No Bill will satisfy everybody. This Bill is replacing an archaic system which is 150 years old. Could one imagine a farmer today digging with a láí in the day of the tractor and the dual purpose plough, which enables farmers to plough up and down without wasting time? We are dealing with laws which were enacted in the day of the láí 150 years ago. The Minister was perfectly right to introduce this Bill.

There is a great deal of talk about the dual mandate. I have an open mind on this. I have seen many successful TDs and Senators who were never members of local authorities. The late James Gallagher, who was a TD for many years, was never a member of such an authority. Mr. Des Hanafin, who was a long-standing Member of this House, resigned from his local authority seat when he was elected to the Seanad. We can view the dual mandate with an open mind. There are many meetings and much work to be done at national level. At the same time there are many meetings and dealings with voluntary organisations at local level, during which objections about various matters are raised and at which local authority members must be present. It is difficult to be everywhere at the same time. I welcome the phasing in by the Minister of changes to the dual mandate which will not take place until the next local elections in 1998.

We would all agree that TDs and Senators should not seek the chairmanships of councils. We should pay tribute to the Minister for providing for the remuneration of chairmen, which was never given before. Chairmen had to go to many functions for which they never received a penny in expenses. They had to spend their own money and could ill afford to do so. The Minister introduced a system for compensating them. It would be unfair of TDs and Senators to compete against other councillors for those posts.

I am pleased with the changes to the status of borough councils. The areas for which Sligo Borough is responsible have been expanded. I am delighted the Minister allowed this to be done at local level. It was done by the corporation and the county council, when they held meetings separately and jointly. They agreed on a proposal. This is a breath of fresh air and is a far cry from the last electoral changes, which were made by an official in the Minister's office drawing a line on a map and had to be accepted at local level. I am pleased that this power has been given to local authorities. Some 60 per cent of the electorate live in towns and 40 per cent live in rural areas.

There was a ridiculous situation in my county in that candidates in the Ballymoate electoral area, which is in the south, had to go through Sligo town to canvass an area in Strandhill which is in their electoral area. The county council adopted a sensible approach in solving this problem and devising more united electoral areas. This problem was not even looked at by the Department at the time. Today the views of councils on such matters are accepted. The next electoral changes should also be the responsibility of councils.

We speak a great deal about the funding of local authorities. One of the great factors militating against funding is the division of counties between different authorities. For example, in County Sligo the corporation and county council are separate authorities. The bulk of rates and carparking fees and fines are collected in the borough. None of this money is given to the county, although a large portion of it is paid by people from the county who go to Sligo town to shop and pay to park their cars. We should perhaps have one authority for a whole county and spread resources more fairly throughout it.

I welcome the Minister's work on by-passes, particularly in the west. The Mullingar by-pass is now completed. Shortly the Longford and Lucan by-passes will be completed. This will enable people from Sligo to travel to Dublin, without speeding, in around three hours and will result in a saving of an hour's travelling time. We depend greatly on container traffic and trucks to transport produce from factories in the west to Dublin for export and distribution elsewhere. The law provides that drivers can only drive for eight hours and must then stop. The new by-passes will enable drivers from Sligo to drive to Dublin without being delayed. Until now they could be held up in Carrick-on-Shannon for an hour and in Longford for God knows how long. Mullingar was a bad bottleneck. From Lucan to the city centre is a terrible bottleneck at present but the Lucan by-pass will remedy this. No harm has been done to the towns around which by-passes have been constructed. If one visits such towns for a meal or to get one's car serviced, one knows parking spaces will be available. This was not the case before the construction of the by-passes.

We hear a great deal about roads. All roads are constructed by contract. In Sligo, after three years of debates at council meetings, it was decided to privatise the refuse collection system. This has resulted in savings of £160,000 a year. Some of these savings can be spent on roads. We now have a better refuse collection service. The council designated areas from which it would not collect refuse. It did not collect from distant areas, where there were caravan parks. Now private operators are going out to all those places. I see bins put out where I never thought I would see them. Everyone is satisfied because everyone in the county who wants a service can get it. It has worked out very well.

We do not build houses by direct labour but put them out to tender. The council works under a terrible anomaly which should be remedied. That is, if a contractor does a job for the council he can recoup the VAT but the council cannot. In Sligo we had a local sewerage scheme which we put out to tender and our engineers put in their own bid. It transpired that our county council could do it more cheaply than any of the other tenders. It proved to us that that the county councils are not as negligent and wasteful as they are sometimes portrayed as being. I also asked contractors to give me prices for local improvement schemes and I found that the council estimate was just as keen, despite the fact that the contractor would be able to claim back his VAT. I feel that the council is labouring under a great anomaly there.

The engineering departments of councils, while part of the council, should be separate in a way. For example, when the council is tarring roads, many people would like to have a small lane tarred for which they would not mind paying a few pounds. However, the council cannot do that kind of work. It is a pity that we do not allow the council to do such work because it would have to be done later through a local improvement scheme etc and it could be done much more cheaply when the council is doing that work. I would like to see the engineering departments having to put in a price for building and maintaining roads. The old system of going as far as the money lasts is gone.

We are not getting adequate funding. I have asked many smart people the meaning of the word "adequate". We read recently in the newspapers that a man won the national lottery but the money was not adequate to keep him going for three years, whereas much less money would keep some other people going for a lifetime. What is adequate funding and do we get value for money? We hire a great deal of machinery for working on roads. Why not hire the contractor entirely or, as we did in Sligo with the sewerage scheme, ask the engineering section to tender for the contract? However, it is not possible to give a fair assessment when they do not get the VAT back. We pay all the VAT and do not get it back, but the contractor does. If that was looked at it would make a great difference.

In England, the council must carry waivers of rents for houses for people who are on low wages or social welfare. However, the Department of Social Services there compensates the council. The Minister should look at that. We should not be a social service as well as being a council which is trying to provide services at keen prices. It is hard to be a branch of the social welfare system and also be expected to compete with private enterprise. They do not have to act like the Society of St. Vincent de Paul as we do. I would like to see some refund from the Department of Social welfare towards such matters.

I welcome the Bill and I am delighted that the Minister is setting up a local commission comprised of councillors to examine the reform. It is the first time that this authority was given to councillors and I welcome it.

Mr. Neville

It is regrettable that this Bill does not address the central issue of the roles and functions to be allocated to national and local government. There will be no real reform until this is done. It is time that the real responsibility was given back to the people. Central Government must be stripped of functions which can be better implemented at local level. It is important for democracy that we move away from the present over-centralised system of government towards self reliant and self governing communities.

It is regrettable that the Government is not willing to let go and allow local authorities manage their areas with real power and responsibilities. The Minister and the Government should have confidence in local authority members to do this. We are way behind our European partners in updating our regional and local government system. In not doing this, the Government is denying the people the right to control their own affairs and play a more active role at every level of government.

The present centralised system has choked local initiative and prevented the development of local communities. If power is devolved to local authorities the members will respond positively, welcome the opportunity to take the responsibility given and the people will then respond to local government. They will feel more involved and will have a healthy attitude towards the political process. It is important that such a healthy situation would develop. The more devolved the power is and the more local the decisions which are taken, the closer people will feel to it and the more confidence they will have in our democratic system. Some of the attitudes towards the democratic system and to politics in general will be redressed.

Local government services cannot be provided without money. Local authorities must have the power to provide their own finances, but this can only be introduced as part of a programme of reform of our central taxation system. We cannot ask people to pay additional taxes on top of the penal regime in force at present. The Government has failed to use the opportunity of this Bill to define the functions which should be carried out by local government. It has not done so because it is unwilling to provide the finances to enable the local government system to operate effectively.

Since 1977 there has been a draining of resources to local government. As a result, services have been severely hit. Does central Government, which has bled the local councils, get the blame for this? In fact, the local councillors and local authorities must daily absorb the rightful frustration of the people. One of the services which we, as councillors, are contacted about almost hourly is the state of our county roads system. It is a typical example of how the services have been depleted and the pressure which is put on local councillors because of decisions by central Government to reduce financing to local councils.

About £100 million per annum is raised from motor taxation and £241 million from motor registration fees. Yet, the county road system is disintegrating, as every councillor from rural areas will agree. We are contacted daily by people who are asking for simply the right to be able to drive from their houses to schools, churches or local villages. There are areas which have become almost inaccessible, and I am speaking for my own county. The power and role of local government is being severely undermined by this. We hear of increased financing. For example, our council received £500,000 from the special £15 million fund set up by the budget. However, the roads grant was reduced by £700,000, so we have a net loss of £200,000.

We need money at local level for the roads and we need it urgently; otherwise we will only fill the potholes and, while that is important, it is inadequate. Come next winter once the weather deteriorates again, we will be back to a worse situation. The roads have been deteriorating over a long number of years and if we do not do something to redress the situation we will almost have a state of mini revolution from rural people against local government, central Government and the whole system because they are meeting this problem daily. Without over politicising it, I genuinely want to say that it is a real problem for local councils. Adequate moneys are required over a period of time. One of the suggestions from Limerick County Council was for a percentage of moneys from motor taxation to remain at local level — perhaps 50 per cent over two, three or four years — to allow councils to repair roads to the standards they were at in the early 1970s.

Part IV of the Bill refers to local authority estimates and rates and the striking of rates. It again highlights the heavy hand of central Government on the backs of local councillors. Under the legislation before us the Minister will retain the power to instruct a local authority to revoke or amend its estimate of expenses following a request by the manager. The councillors elected at local level should be answerable to the people who elect them in respect of the level of services which they give and the charges made. If the management of a local authority is not happy with the estimates agreed by the elected members, an efficiency audit group should be called in to examine the expenditure being sought for the financial year. I do not think it is right that if a manager states that the rate is not sufficient, the Minister can intervene at the behest of the manager. The Minister does not need to be satisfied that the level of local expenditure is justified or if savings can be made. The word of the manager decides such an issue, but no manager should be allowed to do this in the democratic system. I believe that an efficiency audit group should be called in when there is a dispute to examine the situation and to determine if other savings can be made. No manager should have the power to wave the big stick and abolish a local authority at the behest of the Minister.

I wish to refer to the views of the General Council of County Councils, of which some of us here, including Senator Dan Kiely and myself, are members. It is important to place on the record the views of the General Council of County Councils. It welcomes the positive aspects of the Bill, but regrets that it does not tackle the two fundamental problems of local government — the erosion of functions and inadequate funding structures. The Bill does not increase the autonomy of local authorities but increases the powers of the Minister to prescribe the manner in which local authorities do their business.

The general council generally welcomes the provisions in the Bill in relation to the general council as the first statutory recognition of the important role of the council as a national representative association. With regard to the amendments it proposes, the general council is concerned about the adverse impact of local government on the dual mandate system under which 6 per cent of Members of Dáil Éireann are also members of local authorities. The general council recognises however that in a democratic system every citizen is entitled to represent her or his community at every local level of government and to elect whomsoever they wish as their local authority representatives. The general council is concerned at the future implications of the boundary extensions. While the boundary extensions apply only for elective purposes at present, the council is concerned that extensions will follow in the functional and financial areas. This appears inevitable because of the pressure which will be placed on the Local Government Reorganisation Commission to rationalise the untenable situation now being created.

The general council believes that this is the thin end of the wedge and that the proposals of a properly representative and independent commission should be available and considered before any extensions, even electoral extensions, are made. The general council also wishes to have the next local elections held in conjunction with the European Parliament elections scheduled for 1999 and every five years thereafter, without exception.

Because of the lateness of the Bill I had some difficulty in collating the sections. However, the general council wishes to have section 20 deleted from the Bill as it believes that the Minister, in conjunction with both Houses of the Oireachtas, should not have the power to defer or alter in any way the timing of local elections.

Mr. D. Kiely

That has been deleted.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): That section is gone.

Mr. Neville

Again this highlights the lateness of the Bill. I did not get a copy of it until this debate was under way and I tried to do the best I could with what I had. The general council wishes to have section 24 of the Bill — the division of local electoral areas — amended to provide that the Minister may only exercise the powers conferred on him by this section on the basis of proposals made by the statutory independent commission established to make recommendations in relation to the revision of local electoral boundary areas.

The general council is most concerned with section 30 of the Bill, which is extremely undemocratic and exposes local authorities to severe over prescription by the Minister for meetings and procedures. This section of the Bill must be removed if local democracy is to survive. One need only study the level of detail in this section to come to that conclusion. The general council acknowledges the necessity of, and has consistently argued in favour of, the consolidation of the law relating to local government, including law in relation to local authority meetings and procedures. This section of the Bill, although presented as part of this consolidation process, is more concerned with giving the Minister additional draconian powers over the local authorities under which he can regulate all aspects of their affairs. The Minister will be in a position to prescribe what matters may or may not be discussed or considered by local authorities if this section of the Bill is passed. It must be recalled that local authorities are comprised of democratically elected representatives of the people and must be free to act in the general interest of their communities without the type of severe restrictions provided for in this section. The general council is asking us to change this section as a matter of principle.

With regard to section 31 — the provision of amenities — the general council is anxious that clarification be provided in relation to the future structure and composition of An Comhairle Leabharlanna after the next local elections, which, as I have already stated, the council wishes to have held in 1999. I hope the Minister will use the opportunity to clarify this because the council is concerned that the existing nomination procedures and rights, as contained in the Public Libraries Act, 1947, should continue after 1999.

The general council welcomes the provision in the Bill in relation to the powers of local authorities to make by-laws but believes that they are severely limited by the restrictions relating to ministerial approval and powers of revocation also included. The general council wishes to have the Bill amended so that the ministerial power to remove elected members of local authorities from office can only be exercised when an independent commission or tribunal has determined that a local authority has been unreasonable in the exercise of its functions and has the means to have acted accordingly.

The general council wishes that area of the Bill to be amended so that the grant by the Minister to each local authority should be a minimum equal to the revenue which should now accrue to the local authority if rates on all domestic and agricultural property, pre- and post- the major rating changes, continued to be paid. What this section of the Bill now does is to mirror in law the actual situation where the Government has reneged on its commitment to fully replace the loss of revenue to local authorities arising from the Government's decision to abolish rates on domestic properties and not to resolve the problems associated with the rating of agricultural lands.

The general council is extremely concerned at the possibility of destabilising the balance between the county level local authorities and sub-county authorities. The council welcomes the section of the Bill which requires the Local Government Reorganisation Commission to have regard to the need to safeguard the position of county councils as the primary unit of local government in the preparation of a reorganisation report.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Sherlock)

The Senator's time is up. It is also one o'clock and I ask the Senator to move the adjournment.

Mr. Neville

I ask the Minister to take the views of the general council into consideration. I am sure Senator Kiely, as a member of the council, will support me.

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

Mr. Townsend

I welcome several of the measures proposed in this Bill, especially the extension of the outdated boundaries for elections to town commissioners, UDCs, etc. The position is rather awkward in Carlow at present because housing estates and even streets are divided. I am delighted this is being tackled before the forthcoming elections in June.

The establishment of a statutory Local Government Reorganisation Commission is also welcome. The membership of that committee will be all-important and putting an effective body in place will be a difficult task. That commission will be one of the most important in the history of local government because there will be widespread changes.

As a member of a local authority for the past 15 years I constantly hear calls from elected councillors for more power and more money. Often those who shout the loudest make no noise when attempts are made to raise finances at local authority level. Many local authority members are good at spending money but look the other way when it is necessary to raise money. The time is drawing to a close when local authority members, including myself, could have it both ways.

The Minister is on the right track when excluding certain Oireachtas office holders from the position of authority chairman but my one complaint is that he does not go far enough. He should have excluded all Oireachtas Members from being nominated by the local authorities to health boards, the General Council of County Councils, regional tourist boards, vocational education committees and other organisations to which councils nominate members. Councillors will say Oireachtas Members wish to be on these committees because they are greedy, and I agree. They should not be members of such bodies.

On the other hand, there was a suggestion recently that Oireachtas Members would not be allowed contest local elections. Such ideas are dangerous; it is wrong to prohibit people from putting their names on ballot papers. Oireachtas Members who are also members of local authorities provide a vital and necessary link which helps keep democracy alive. I am concerned about the media speculation on this issue.

Some time ago, journalists referred to local politics in a derogatory way as "parish pump politics". I am an unashamed and unapologetic parish pump politician and I am proud to be so. I was elected to Carlow County Council to look after the local people and to try to solve their problems. I consider it an honour to be a parish pump politician.

My parish, Tinryland, was one of the first in Ireland to get rural electrification and one of the first in which a group water scheme was organised, the Ballyloe scheme. Some years ago in my parish the county council tried to remove the parish pump. I resisted that and the parish pump, which is functional, now stands as a monument to parish politics. When the modern schemes break down people can get drinking water from it.

The Minister should look seriously at the recommendation made by the General Council of County Councils that every five years we should hold local elections on the same day as the European elections because it makes good sense. Elections should be held on Sundays because this would give workers who are away from home and students who are at college an opportunity to vote.

Another aspect of this Bill about which I am concerned is casual trading. Local authorities will have control over this area. Under the casual trading regulations home produced goods should be exempt. It has been the custom for many years, particularly in the south-east, for people to sell strawberries on the side of the road.

An Cathaoirleach

The Minister agrees with you.

Mr. Townsend

I hope the Minister uses his influence, otherwise he will be in trouble.

Mr. Cassidy

The Senator is getting a one-sided view.

Mr. Townsend

Many tourists who come here during the soft fruit season buy fresh fruit on the side of the road. Many young people sell this fruit to make money to go to college. If casual trading is banned, these young people should get the dole. This is a step in the wrong direction. We must make a distinction between the sale of fresh fruit and home produced goods on the side of the road and the sale of imported goods and items which might have fallen off the back of a lorry. I ask the Minister to exempt the sale of fresh fruit from casual trading.

Mr. Sherlock

I am glad Senator Townsend has a good local government system in his part of the country because that is not the case where I come from. He is loud in his praise of the system of local government, but I would hold the opposite view.

The provisions in this Bill propose to postpone elections to county councils for two years. This must be opposed because we would only have had three elections in two decades. The fact that this Bill does not make any provision to elevate town commissioners to urban councils clearly shows there is no policy or intention to strengthen local government. This Bill does not give us any confidence. We are probably all members of local authorities and we know the importance of strengthening local government or restoring it to its former position. From my experience of local government, politicians have been dissuaded by civil servants from putting structures in place which would provide a two-tier system of Government. They have not done this for any objective planning reason but because they do not have confidence in lesser beings to achieve what they have failed to achieve because they are preoccupied with financial control. That has been the name of the game in local government over the last five years.

At present local communities who ask the local authority for sanitary services are told they must apply to the Department of the Environment for approval to appoint a consultant. This did not happen a couple of years ago when the local authority could draw up its plans and carry out investigations. Now one must wait. For example, the local authority in north Cork had to wait 12 months for the Department of the Environment to approve the appointment of a consultant.

Previously, at least 40 per cent of the proceeds from the sale of local authority houses could be used as revenue. The 1993-94 directive stated that 100 per cent of the proceeds from the sale of local authority houses must be applied to capital. This means that the capital allocation for local authority housing and services would be reduced and there will be less revenue.

The Minister will probably say we are terrible people in north Cork, but the north Cork division of Cork County Council could have its business done by April. When I joined that local authority in 1974, and well into the 1980s, it had a meaningful role for the communities it served. That is no longer the case and this Bill will not change that.

I am not clear about section 20 which deals with vocational education committee representatives because new regional authorities have been proposed. Does this mean the urban district councils will be able to elect people to the proposed regional authorities which will probably be established? The rates support grant is gradually being reduced.

Section 32 states:

(1) Each of the following shall be a library authority——

(a) the council of a county, and

(b) the corporation of a county borough.

Is that not the case at present? Is the county council not the controlling body of the county library service?

I read the Programme for a Partnership Government and its section on local government reform stated:

We will accelerate the progress of Local Government Reform and the devolution of funding from Central Government to Local Authorities so as to give greater scope for local initiative in decision-making. That is not happening in this Bill.]

Statutory controls requiring Local Authorities to obtain Ministerial approval in carrying out various functions will be removed so as to widen the freedom of Local Authorities to act;

I am sorry Senator Townsend has left the Chamber because he is a member of the party which agreed to the Programme for a Partnership Government, which also states that the "European Charter of Local Self-Government will be ratified". I do not know how effective the regional authorities will be. They will not meet frequently and this system of finance will not help. However, I believe it will be a good system to broaden that base and, especially with EU funding, it will be important to strengthen that position.

I understand there was a debate in this House on the Charter in 1991; Ireland and Britain are the only members of the EU who have not yet ratified the Charter. Britain's failure to do so arises from its commitment to the supremacy of Parliament, but we have no excuse other than civil servants not letting go and not having more confidence in us lesser beings and in the local authority system.

The Charter was recommended in the Barrington report on the reorganisation of local government and it was included in the Programme for a Partnership Government. It would give local government a basis and recognition by central government of its existence. We should not be the odd country out, with Britain, on this issue. I ask the Minister to have confidence in us and to show the Government is serious about local government by signing the Charter.

Mr. Cassidy

I welcome the Bill. Given the contributions of experienced local authority members, the feeling is that this Bill is a step in the right direction. Although some Members would like to see more being done, I welcome this Bill and I would like to express views on various aspects of it.

As a member of a local authority since 1985, I welcome the £2 million allocation towards library books. Although it is long overdue, it is a step in the right direction. It is a recognition of the role libraries play in the community. Library members often rely on books for entertainment. This money will be spent immediately because there is a demand for books.

I welcome the fact that from 1998 local elections will be held every five years. I commend the Minister for giving up the right to name the date of the election. The Minister is handing over a power to local authorities by relinquishing his right to extend the date of the election. As we all know, Ministers for the Environment for various reasons down the years have extended the date to the fifth, sixth or seventh year.

We must recognise that local authorities are large employers; they employ 30,000 people who make a magnificent contribution to the economy. The public may not be aware that local authorities raise over £400 million per annum — a fact which was not recognised by speakers today; according to some, all funding comes from the Minister for the Environment or the Exchequer.

Local authority and county council members must be complimented. People watching me on television or listening to me on radio do not know that local authority members give their time voluntarily. They give up one or two days of their working week, whether they involved in farming, industry or self-employed. A member of a county council, an urban council, a district council or a town commission gives his time voluntarily. He does not get one penny for the time he spends at meetings which can last for three to seven hours. I commend all local authority members since the foundation of the State for their contribution, on a voluntary basis, to the community and to the local authority system.

I am honoured to be elected to this House by local authority members. For that reason it would be remiss of me not to mention the section relating to the June mandate. I welcome the disqualification of Oireachtas Members from the position of Chair or vice-Chair, which will be known as Cathaoirleach and Leas-Chathaoirleach from 1998. Those holding those positions have received remuneration in recent years. I was honoured to be elected Chairman of Westmeath County Council in 1990. It is expensive to carry out duties on behalf of one's local authority but to do the job properly, expenses will be incurred and the remuneration one receives covers these expenses.

I refer to Senator Townsend's point about the important link between local authority members and the Oireachtas. Legislation passed by the Oireachtas is passed on to county secretaries or managers and it is then noted at local authority meetings. As an expert legislator, the Cathaoirleach will know that we often make contributions which inform other local authority members, county managers, county secretaries and county engineers of something of which they were not aware in the new legislation. It is important that a link be kept between the Oireachtas and local authority members. The commission, which will include local authority members, should look at the possibility of the various committees mentioned by Senator Townsend. It is a step in the right direction to prohibit a chairman of a county council being a Member of Oireachtas from 1998. I commend them Minister for this courageous move.

A number of speakers referred to roads. As someone who uses roads a lot — up to 60,000 miles each year — in the past ten or 15 years there has been a revolution in road construction. It is fantastic to see improvements which have been carried out. In County Westmeath the largest project ever undertaken was the Athlone bypass.

Mr. Reynolds

Senator Cassidy would be welcome in County Leitrim.

Mr. Cassidy

It is a work of genius on the part of our county engineers. We now have the Mullingar bypass which stretches for 5.1 miles. It speeds up traffic from the west, from County Sligo and County Leitrim.

Mr. Reynolds

If one could get out of County Leitrim.

Mr. Cassidy

The Longford bypass is under construction and the Leixlip-Kil-tasti cock bypass will be completed by the end of this year. This will take one hour off the journey from Sligo to Dublin. Two hours of one's working day can now be put to more fruitful and productive purposes than sitting in a car. Having travelled around Ireland on a monthly basis, I commend the Government on the amount of work which has been carried out since 1987.

County roads are in poor condition. The people may not be aware of this but last evening the Minister for the Environment told Members in the other House that we have roughly 50 inches of rain per annum. So far this year we had 39 inches of rain and that is bound to take its toll on the roads. I ask Members to cast their memories back to 1988. Prior to that year no State grants were available for maintenance of county roads. This year provision for the maintenance of all non-national roads is £28.3 million, an increase of £16 million or 130 per cent on 1993. This is a massive amount of money and, to give credit where credit is due, must be welcomed in this House today.

In the National Development Plan the Government plans to spend £1 billion from 1994 to 1999. As a 12 year Member of this House I welcome this great news for our roads and infrastructure. In the past temporary repairs were done to facilitate people in the short term, but these repairs were needed again after two months. The average for filling these famous potholes was four times a year. I welcome this plan which will eliminate the need for these temporary repairs over the next three to four years by reinforcing the foundations of these roads. Many of these roads were never intended for the very heavy single wheel traffic on them at present. When a lorry carrying 35 tons takes a corner, the impact on that corner is doubled. The weight on the wheels taking the corner is 70 tons. These roads were never built for that. We now recognise that and the infrastructure will be improved, but it is practically and physically impossible to complete this work in one year, even without taking into account the disastrous weather conditions we have had for the last number of months. I have said enough about that. To be fair and reasonable, if these people were Ministers for the Environment or Ministers of State at the Department of the Environment, or in Government, they would not be able to have the roads repaired more quickly. We must face up to a three to four year battle to get all this work done.

I listened to many contributors in relation to the upgrading of our town commissioners and urban district councils. I welcome the upgrading of the Mullingar Town Commission. Mullingar is the biggest town in the midlands and the local authority there will now be a town commission. The distinguished town of Athlone is well looked after as well. I welcome this in the Bill.

In relation to the proposal to have Sunday elections, I would like the commission to consider the possibility of Saturday elections as well as Sunday elections. Saturday would be a very suitable day as many people are not working and are at home. Over 300,000 people leave Dublin on Friday evenings and return on Sunday evenings. Everyone is at home and available on Saturday, so I ask the Minister to consider that.

In regard to casual trading, Senator Townsend made the point that casual trading, particularly in relation to strawberries, should be the business of the Minister of State present today. He should have a chat with his own Minister, because I understand the Minister in charge of this legislation is from his own party. He probably has a point and he might make progress with him.

I welcome the Bill in general. I do not wish to be repetitive or long winded. I am in total support of it and I wish it a speedy passage through the House.

Mr. Reynolds

I congratulate Senator Cassidy on that very uplifting speech. He did not travel throughout the country; he travelled throughout Leinster.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Reynolds, you are inviting problems for both yourself and myself. Please continue with your contribution.

Mr. Reynolds

The Local Government Bill ignores the two fundamental problems facing local authorities. It ignores the frustration arising from lack of power felt by every elected member of a local authority in regard to problems that develop in the county. The decision process does not work in favour of local authority members. All of us who are members of local authorities agree with this. The Bill gives more powers to the executive of local authorities and to the Minister than it does to the elected representatives on the ground. When we are reforming the local authority structure we should give more power to the local authorities, because all local authority members, as Senator Cassidy has said, have worked voluntarily. We are advised by the European Union to take a bottom-up approach, because the people on the ground know better what the problems are and how to solve them. The bureaucracy is very centralised. It is necessary to go to the Department of the Environment through the executive of the local authority. Decisions cannot be easily made and members of local authorities are very frustrated because of this.

The issue of finance for local authorities has been totally ignored in this Bill and this, along with the decision making process, is the greatest problem we have as local authority members. I know it is a thorny issue and there are no easy remedies as far as financing for local authorities is concerned, but somebody at some stage will have to make some sort of commitment and put into place a structure to enable local authorities to provide the proper finances for themselves from their own area.

County Leitrim has only 720 rate payers. There are more ratepayers in the three streets of Mullingar then there are in all of County Leitrim. The council has great difficulty in raising funding locally and, unfortunately, the rates support grant has been cut every year over the last four or five years. The grant has been cut gradually each year. If it had been maintained at the same level, taking inflation into consideration, Leitrim County Council would be £16 million better off this year. If we as Oireachtas Members do not put the legislation in place to make local authorities more independent, so they can make decisions by themselves, we are doing them an injustice. This Bill lacks any such provision. My greatest fear is that this Bill will be seen as reform when reform will not have taken place. This Bill only tinkers at the edges of those fundamental areas.

I wish to make a point about roads. Every local authority in the country that has any regional or county roads has found great difficulty in raising the funds to maintain those roads. Six Government Ministers visited County Leitrim in the last six months. We were delighted that they were there, but they all came by helicopter. I suppose they would have found it a shattering experience to drive on the roads. I was glad that Senator Cassidy used the term "uplifting" because it has been an uplifting experience for the members of Government but not for the poor souls left in County Leitrim.

Senator Mooney would agree with me, as we have held the same view at numerous local authority meetings, that we have not had enough funding from the Government for county roads and we hope that we will get some more. A number of projects have been taking place in the county — the Ballinamore-Ballyconnell Canal, for example. It is ironic that one can travel by water and by air in Leitrim but one finds it difficult to travel by road. We had a unique experience in that we have had traffic lights installed in Leitrim for the first time. There are about 50 of them on the canal, but none on the roads where we have most of the traffic.

Mr. Cassidy

What about Drumsna?

Mr. Reynolds

They are only a "temporary little arrangement."

Mr. Cassidy

They have been there a long time.

Mr. Reynolds

This is an opportunity missed by the Minister. I hope when the commission decides on the strategy to adopt that it will seriously take into consideration the two points I made at the outset — funding for local authorities and extra powers for local councillors.

We are in a unique position in County Leitrim in that we are an itinerant council at present as we have no headquarters. The building we used in Carrick on Shannon is a condemned building. I suppose we are all a little condemned having sat in it for a number of years. However, it is a serious matter because the local authority members feel that if they do not get funding to help provide a headquarters, the local authority will not be able to continue to exist. In the context of the regional approach adopted by Government and the EU the structure of Leitrim County Council is under threat. That brings us back to the point about the rates support grant and the small rates base we have in the county. More than any other county we are totally dependent on Government for our finance.

The Bill is a missed opportunity. I hope the commission comes up with a forceful approach to the reform of local authority and I hope the Government will take that into consideration and implement it urgently.

Mr. Roche

I dispute the suggestion that this Bill is a missed opportunity. Local government is Ireland is littered with missed opportunities from all administrations since the foundation of the State. Local government has always been treated as a Cinderella service. We have no fundamental philosophy of local government, but I would say of the Minister for the Environment, Deputy M. Smith, that he has come the closest of any Minister in recent years to having a clear philosophy about local government.

Mr. Reynolds

Without the finance.

Mr. Roche

We may dispute the issue but not the fact. I wish to pick up on one or two of the many issues in this Bill. I welcome the Bill generally. There are some aspects where there could be improvement but, equally, there are aspects in which this Bill is a significant improvement on the existing situation.

Part II of the Bill deals with local authority membership and the issue of the dual mandate is highlighted. This is a matter on which I have mixed feelings. As a member of two local authorities and a Member of this House I believe there a big benefit to be gained by the dual mandate. I commend the views expressed by the General Council of County Councils to the Minister. It points out that it is concerned with the adverse impact on local government of the dual mandate system. It recognises, however, that in the democratic system every citizen is entitled to represent his or her community at every level of government. There is considerable benefit from a degree of overlap.

I serve on a town commission—it was the first public authority to which I was elected — and it is my ambition to upgrade that town commission to urban status. In being a county councillor for that town commission area I can ensure that the town commission gets some resources — we all know that town commissions are really only talking shops at present. By representing my county council area in the Oireachtas I can highlight inequities affecting that area.

In relation to organisational structures, there is a famous article by an American, Mr. Rensis Lykhert, in which he talks about having link pins between each level of organisational structure. I would say to the Minister's officials who have never served in a democratic form that there is a great deal of benefit to be gained from having linking pins or personalities between different levels of Government. Local government, county government and central Government are not all separate; they are parts of a continuum.

I understand that the main emphasis the Minister wishes to focus on is the problem that Oireachtas Members in trying to serve too many causes serve none well. There is a need for Oireachtas reform, but I question whether the approach to Oireachtas reform and to lifting the burden off Oireachtas Members should be achieved by disconnecting Oireachtas membership from membership of local authorities. That is the wrong way to go about it. There is a fundamental need for reform of the way the Houses of the Oireachtas operate but that should be achieved separately from the reform of local government.

If we wish to make time for Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas to become members or chairmen of committees — this is a major problem and the Minister is right to identify it as such — the best way to do so is by amending the electoral system. The model of continental Europe is always trotted out for us as Oireachtas Members, but there is no system of parliamentary representation in Europe that has as competitive an electoral system as ours. That is the nub of the issue, not whether one is a Member of the Oireachtas and of a local authority. To return to the view of the General Council of County Councils, it believes that it is important that the people have the maximum amount of choice.

Part III of the Bill deals with the changes in the compilation of the voting register. They have not been commented on by other Members, yet they are important changes. Some years ago I represented the Dáil at the elections in Nicaragua and I was amazed that a developing country emerging from a bitter civil war could have an electoral system which was infinitely better than ours. It was flexible; up to a week before election day people could still be put on the register. There is a danger when going for flexibility in the register that unethical practices might creep in. I recall that at the last local elections in Bray one of my party's election agents, with the support of election agents from other parties, stopped a busload of people who attempted to vote in two or three different polling stations. I was pleased that it was a cross party effort to make sure that such undemocratic activity should not be allowed to take place. There is a danger of abuse when introducing flexibility.

Part IV deals with the positions of Cathaoirleach and Leas-Chathaoirleach. I have some mixed feelings on this matter, which I have expressed privately to the Minister. I accept the Minister's view; it is well put. Are all the paid offices of the State excluded? I can think of at least one which is not. I do not know why this is the case, but I will not mention it here for a variety of reasons. From the smile on the Minister's face, he knows what I am talking about.

Section 32 (5) has attracted a great degree of attention from the General Council of County Councils. Its views and the fears it has expressed on this section are well founded. I know the Minister wishes to create more flexibility, but he should either accept or look more closely at the views of the general council on this issue on Report Stage. The Minister does not want to introduce inflexibility or any additional ministerial control. The ethos of the Minister's operation is to decentralise local government and push power down to the local authorities. However, section 32 at least has the capacity to infringe on that positive ethos.

The General Council of County Councils expressed two specific fears about local government; I share both of them. First, it talked about the erosion of functions and second, the inadequacy of funding. Let us not fool ourselves. It does not matter what Minister is in the Customs House representing the Department of the Environment or across the way in the Department of Finance. Any Minister who dares to introduce a change in funding arrangements would be lacerated by their political opponents and possibly by some in their own party.

There is a fundamental problem in the funding of local government, which we all recognise. The general council is correct in saying that there can be no local government without autonomous local funding. We are fooling ourselves if we suggest otherwise. Many hours of good peoples' time is put into discussing issues in local authorities. At the end of the day, they get the same response from every county manager and engineer: "It is a good idea but we do not have the money for it". In an expanding town like Greystones, we do not have money for footpaths. There was a major battle to put a pedestrian crossing on a dangerous road after 15 years of discussion. That is not local government but its antithesis. The most fundamental issue in local government — both the general council and every Member of both Houses recognise it — is the issue of finance.

The general council also touched on the issue of the erosion of the local authority member status and function. I fear there is an urgent need for us to review the operations of the county managerial system. When this system was introduced in 1942, there was uproar at local government level because it was regarded as being, to say the least, dictatorial. By 1955, some accommodation of the wishes of local authority had been reached. In the 1955 Amendment Act worthwhile amendments were put onto the Statute Book. Those amendments have been eroded because people have been arguing that the use of section 4 planning permissions had been abused. How can the use of a law of the land by elected members of county councils who are democratically answerable to their public in open fora be regarded as undemocratic? This is so much humbug and I fear there is a discernible trend of power moving from elected representatives to county managers, which is undemocratic. I can cite a specific case to illustrate this view. We have been fighting on a section 4 planning permission in County Wicklow for months. The county executive had brought in two separate strands of legal advice. However, the matter will be discussed next Monday and all of the legal advice given amounts to a ball of smoke.

There is an increasing undemocratic trend and the general council has made its fears known on this matter. There is a similar trend at official level, both at central and local government levels. There is a virtual conspiracy among bureaucracies and mandarins, who are not answerable to anybody, to eviscerate the local authority members, reduce their powers and make them mere ciphers. You, a Chathaoirligh, as a member of a local authority with a long and distinguished record, know the truth of this, as does the Minister. In a democracy it is fundamentally wrong that any appointed person should have more power than the one that is supposed to represent the public.

The council, town commission and urban council members in our most humble authority have one thing no public official has — the imprimatur of the electorate; they are the choice of the people. This is a democracy and not some Stalinist dictatorship. However, if one looks at some of our local authorities, it is sad but true to say that they bear more comparison to some Stalinist regimes than to a true democracy. I am fed up of being told by public officials that local elected representatives cannot perform certain tasks. For all our warts and flaws, the elected representatives in our most humble local authority are the choice of the people. They are answerable to the people and go before them every three to five years.

I finally wish to address the issue of elections and wish to make a suggestion to the Minster and the Minister of State. I agree with the Minister that there should be certainty with regard to the date of local elections. One cannot have dates moving all over the place; it is unhealthy for democracy. The last urban council elections were held in 1985. New elections will only take place next month and that is fundamentally unhealthy. It is similarly unhealthy to link local elections with any kind of national election. Inevitably, the local elections will then become associated along party lines. In politics, we are all guilty of this; my party is as guilty as any other in this regard. When a local election comes around at midterm, we use it to beat the Government around its ears. General elections are where the Government should give a report of its stewardship; local elections concern local government. It would be far better to have local government elections every two to three years and not for the entire authority, but only a part of it. Half of the councillors would be elected in phase I and the other half in phase II. There is also a strong case for not having local elections in synchronisation with either the European or general elections, but for having them separately. Local government elections should stand separate.

I have been on a town commission since 1984. I cannot remember a single occasion when members have divided along party lines. There are Fine Gael members who now represent an independent group, Labour Party members and those of my own Fianna Fáil group on the commission and we have always put the interests of our town first. We have never been whipped according to party lines. I know this also holds for commissions throughout the country. Similarly, there is an attempt to serve on the basis of what is best for the people rather than the party in county councils. That is good, but it is a fundamental error to link local elections with any other ones. We should seriously consider separating them. I will be making a proposition along these lines when the commission comes along.

We all know that the life blood of local government is finance. During the debate some Members referred to the issue of roads. While referring to funds and calling for an improvement in the funding issue, there is also a responsibility on all members of local government to look for efficiency. The Minister recently said that it was costing approximately £12,000 per mile to maintain and resurface our county roads. That is scandalous. I have told both this Minister and his two immediate predecessors that the local authority members are blinded with science on each occasion they talk about some issue of estimates when they want to discuss how to go about matters; we recently had such a case in our local authority. I have asked for an efficiency audit unit to be created, in the same way as one has internal audit units in private enterprise. The board of a private enterprise can ask if they are conducting this matter as efficiently as possible and if we are getting value for money.

Local authority members are blinded with science every time they make a proposal. They used to be told they could not do something because it was ultra vires, but now they are told they cannot do something because of lack of funds. If the Minister sets up a unit which local authority members could call on to scrutinise the way their authorities do things, he would save not tens, but perhaps hundreds of millions of pounds over the period of life of any of the elected councils which will be established.

There is a need to give a degree of technical support to the local authority which, as every local authority member is aware, is not available at present. We all know that we are trying to second guess officials who have all kinds of consultants and engineering qualifications behind them. In this respect, the common sense of councillors is one of the most extraordinary and enlightening things that I have witnessed — I will not say "ordinary councillors" because there is nothing ordinary about them; they are extraordinary people.

The common sense of councillors is evident on health boards, on local county councils, on urban councils and on town commissions. Sometimes they can, by simply applying common sense, produce more elegant, more efficient and more cost effective solutions to the problems than all the expertise which our universities trot out.

We have a tremendous resource in local government. I recall that one Taoiseach said many years ago — a man with whom I worked and for whom I had great respect but with whom I disagreed on this issue — that we had too much local government. We do not; we have far too little local government. The problem is to equip local government for the challenge of the next century and the next millennium. That is what this Bill is about. It is a beginning, not an end. There is a huge amount which has to be done, but above all, the vitality, energy, enthusiasm and the simple practical patriotism which exists in each and every council chamber should be released. We should get the shackles off the local authorities and we would have much better local government.

Mr. D'Arcy

Having listened to my neighbour Senator Roche, I agree to a great extent with his views. This House is probably the best equipped in respect of knowledge and wisdom regarding local government because almost every Member, with the exception of those from the universities, have been, or continue to be members of local authorities.

I listened to the debate in the Dáil yesterday and there has been an excellent debate today in this House. I welcome the Bill but regret that it does not tackle the fundamental problems regarding local government. In this respect I refer to the two main areas relating to local government — the erosion of the powers of local authorities and inadequate funding.

The Bill does not increase the autonomy of local authorities, unfortunately it attempts to increase the authority of the county managers and the Minister, which is a great mistake. Section 30 sets out how the Minister can take onto himself the way in which the agenda of county council meetings can be established. I have never encountered a measure so ridiculous as this being included in an Act of the Oireachtas.

I am deeply critical of the Minister on this issue in view of the fact that he and the Taoiseach were both members of local authorities. I would have assumed that they would have a little more understanding of what takes place at a council meeting. The Minister has been taken in by his officials on this issue. Every county council and local authority has standing orders which are brought before each council at the beginning of a county council term, after the county elections, and they are amended, added to or subtracted from. However, for the Minister to lay down a set of headings in respect of how a county council meeting should be run, as outlined in section 30 of the Bill, is a fundamental mistake and will create many problems. An example of such problems would be where a county manager believes that a county council meeting should only be run in accordance with the provisions of the Bill. This would be physically impossible. I speak as chairman of a council, as a long time serving member of a council and for all parties on this issue, and none of them if they were honest, would agree with these provisions. In view of this I have requested my party spokesperson to ascertain if it is possible to have section 30 removed from the Bill.

Many functions of county councils have been eroded over the years and the Minister appears to be doing nothing to stop this erosion. With every local government Act a little more of these functions disappears and, regrettably, this Bill continues that trend. Indeed, the purpose of the Bill appears to be to erode further and restrict the operations of county councils. For example, the National Roads Authority has been established. Will this authority do a better job than the county councils? I do not believe so, especially given the fact that practically all the arterial road works are now carried out under contract and every county council has an adequate number of officials and engineers to ensure that such contracts are properly executed. Indeed, I understand that the role of the National Roads Authority is a supervisory one and that most of clerical work in respect of these roads is undertaken by the county councils.

The work dealing with the regulation on sheep dipping was, with few exceptions, well done by the county councils. The Minister saw fit, under pressure from the IFA, to discontinue this function, a decision with which many, including myself, disagreed. I fear that following this decision a great mistake will be made. My great interest is agriculture and I discovered that in the UK this regulation was removed three years ago. It is now admitted in the UK that there is a serious problem regarding scab disease, a disease which will doubtless appear in this country in the next few years.

Finally, the registration of motor vehicles was always effectively undertaken by the county councils but is now being transferred to the Revenue Commissioners. Whether a car should be taxed, it is wrong for the Revenue Commissioners to have control of this area.

These are the important functions because they relate to people living in local areas and the county councils carried out their functions and did an excellent job in respect of all of them. In this respect, development roles, for example the county enterprise boards, local partnership schemes and WORD, which could have been taken over by the county councils, have been handed to other bodies. Had this developmental role been granted to the county councils, especially in view of the fact that most councils had a county development officer giving them a head start, they would have done an excellent job.

I accept that small amounts of money have been put into these areas. However, the county councils were far better equipped than most of these bodies and could have taken the local organisations on to their committees when it came to decision making in this area. However, this did not happen and in consequence I must advise the Minister, Deputy Browne, that there is duplication of work on a wide scale. For example, an applicant told me he had his application examined by all three organisations, with officials going from one place to another and the applicant's grant was for £5,000. This kind of activity makes no sense. It is a terrible waste of public money. The first person to notice this waste would be a county councillor because the applicant would advise the councillor that he had been examined by the local partnership scheme, the county enterprise board and WORD. It probably cost more than £5,000 for all three organisations to examine the application to ascertain if the applicant would qualify for the grant.

This is an example of an opportunity lost. I do not suggest that the county council could run these schemes alone. Other organisations — such as IDA Ireland, the farming organisations, etc., — could be involved in the decision making. However, at present there are three organisations working in one area and creating a large amount of duplication.

Responsibility for housing is being given to voluntary organisations. All county councillors know that county councils have done an excellent job in providing housing. I accept there is a problem with repairs in Dublin city and Dún Laoghaire. This problem does not exist in other county councils which face huge bills for maintenance repairs. Structural damage should be repaired by local authorities. However, clerks of works or carpenters have been sent to put in windows, which cost three times the price of the original one. Repairs of doors and windows should not have been done by county councils and there should be legislation to ensure this. This would result in savings. Councils should carry out roof and other structural repairs. Voluntary organisations have stated they are not prepared to carry out repairs on these houses. In 25 years 10, 15 or 20 per cent of these houses, which will be beyond repair in some cases, will be handed back to county councils.

The Department of the Environment insists that county councils pay for the cost of preliminary reports on sewerage and water schemes operated by them. This is most unfair. This costs Wexford County Council approximately £1.5 million annually. This has been a contentious issue for some time as the Minister is aware. The Department will argue that if councils are given carte blanche, they will continually seek funding for a large number of schemes. Surely the Department can control this situation by indicating what preliminary reports should be carried out in respect of water and sewerage schemes. This would restrict the amount of money councils could spend. However, in present financial circumstances councils cannot be asked to pay for such works.

Last year Wexford paid £1.9 million in higher education grants over a four month period. There is a delay of two months in the paying of grants for road improvements to county councils. During the delay the costs are carried by councils. Nobody would mind councils carrying this cost if they could raise and have control over their own money. The Department of the Environment is in a far better position to seek adequate funding when it produces its Estimate prior to the budget. County councils cannot do this. The financial position of councils has been particularly bad since 1977. The decision to discontinue rates was a great mistake. We are not sure of the Government's present proposals. Proposals have been suggested by some but rejected by others. The Taoiseach says it is intended to reimpose rates on houses but the Minister, Deputy Smith, say he does not intend to do so. Others have told me privately that under no circumstances will this happen. It is confusing that no one knows where the Government stands on this issue.

A great deal of damage is done by people who are irresponsible and do not impose service charges in the right places at the right time. Wexford County Council did not pull back from imposing charges. We levied charges in full and never batted an eyelid. The Minister of State knows this as he was a member of the council at the time. Some people fought us on this issue but never won the battle. As regards our water supply every penny we spend on water is collected in charges. The same applies to refuse collection; it will be an economic proposition within two years. It seems that the Department intends to reduce the role of county councils in the disposal of rubbish, the provision of water supplies and the upkeep of county roads.

The condition of county roads is a serious issue in every county. We have 1,700 miles of such roads in Wexford. As a period of 27 years elapses between each surface dressing, these roads have deteriorated greatly. I appeal to the Minister to devise a system where councils will have adequate funding for county roads.

The provision of halting sites for travelling families is a huge problem and it will not go away. I cannot understand the Department's attitude. The provision of these sites is a sensitive issue and hard to sell in any area. One area of Enniscorthy has been taken over by travellers who have done untold damage. I request the Department to tackle the problem on two fronts. The provision of halting sites is one way of dealing with the problem but houses must also be built. Many travelling families will accept houses. However, the Department has ruled that an extra allocation of houses must be provided by voluntary organisations. There is no logic to this. Voluntary bodies must get land from county councils who are not permitted to provide houses themselves. I appeal to the Minister of State, who is aware of this serious problem, to apply the same conditions to county councils as apply to voluntary organisations when it comes to providing housing for travellers.

Future legislation should look at the developmental role of county councils. Every council is well equipped to fulfil this role. Councils can avail of the services of engineering and administrative staff, development officers, the IDA, etc.

On the dual mandate, I see no reason people cannot be allowed make a choice. We are living in a democracy and should act as such. I accept that the Ceann Comhairle, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and the Cathaoirleach should not be members of local authorities. However, the dual mandate is beneficial in the case of other Members of the Oireachtas and I support it.

Mr. Mooney

I welcome the Minister, I have not had the opportunity of doing so previously. Most Members, particularly those who are members of local authorities, think that, although the Bill is excellent, there was a rush of blood to the head when section 30 was inserted. I do not understand the logic of this. Are we giving power and effectiveness to local authorities or not? Other Members have already put on record the wording of the Bill and I have no doubt this section will be teased out in more detail on Committee Stage. I hope the Minister, who has proved to be responsive and generous to local authorities over the years in terms of legislation, will reconsider the implications of this section and, at best, delete it or, at worst, let it lapse. However, my contribution will deal with the Bill's positive aspects.

I am the representative of the Library Association of Ireland in the Seanad, having had the honour of being nominated by that august body since 1987. I have always tried, in association with its executive committee and general membership, to put before successive Ministers for the Environment and, to a lesser extent, Ministers for Education the priorities outlined by the association. As a member of a local authority, I know that funding for libraries has been low on the list of priorities at estimates time. I am sure many of my colleagues will concur with this. This has not been because of lack of sympathy, understanding or support for libraries or the concept of a public library service. Part of the overall difficulties which have faced local authorities since the abolition of rates in 1977 in attempting to balance the books — as has emerged here and in other fora — is that the question of our road network has always taken precedence over the necessary provision of other services within the local authority area. Consequently, the estimate for libraries has tended to be reduced in many cases and sometimes has not even been included in the estimate.

However, I am glad to say that in recent years local authorities have attempted to address this problem and to redress the deficit which has built up over decades of neglect. Therefore, it came as a pleasant surprise — and I may be underestimating the reaction within the body politic of the library association — when the Minister for the Environment announced in the other House that he was providing £2 million for the public library service. This is, by any stretch of the imagination, an astonishing figure in the present economic climate.

I am overwhelmed at the Minster's generosity and I do not say that tongue in cheek but with deep sincerity because, since my election to this House in 1987, I have led numerous deputations to successive Ministers who always gave a positive and generous response to the points raised. Sometimes the generosity of the response did not match the expectations of the deputation but I am sure any Minister who has been in that situation will understand that expectations cannot always be fulfilled.

The first breakthrough came in 1989-90 when a joint operation by the then Minister for Education, Deputy O'Rourke, and the then Minister for the Environment, Deputy Flynn, resulted in the Cabinet agreeing to a sum of £1 million being set aside to improve the then book fund. Sadly, the situation had deteriorated to such an extent that the £1 million was very quickly dissipated. Due to the fact that local authorities were unable — and in a minority of cases unwilling — to increase the book fund within their own counties, the libraries found themselves taking two steps forward and one step back.

This injection of £2 million has set the public library system on an upward spiral. We await the details from the Department of the Environment as to how it will allocate the money which, I presume, will be on a pro rata basis, county by county. It will mean that not only will libraries be able to replace books, which in some cases have been kept together with sticking plaster and sellotape, but will be able to provide a greater variety of new publications to the people who need them most. As we all know, the vast majority of people, particularly in urban areas, who use the public library system are socially disadvantaged or find that the increasing cost of purchasing new books is beyond their weekly budget. This injection of money is manna from heaven. Without labouring the point, I congratulate the Minister; he will have the eternal gratitude of the public library system.

The library association has taken a particular interest in this Bill not only because of the provision of the money as outlined but because there is, for the first time since 1947, a special section devoted to libraries and the operation of the library system. This comes under Part VI which deals with amenity, recreation, library and other functions. The library association, as the Minister will know, has made submissions in relation to certain areas of interest.

The association welcomes the inclusion of any provisions relating to the public library service in the Bill. It particularly welcomes that the Bill provides a legislative basis for public library provision; that it defines a library authority; that provision has been made for the continuation of joint library authorities; that the Bill includes provisions relating to library development plans and that the anomaly relating to the compulsory acquisition of land has been removed, which was of particular interest to the association.

However, the association was anxious that the Minister might consider amending or changing the regulations in relation to some other sections, such as that the membership of An Chomhairle Leabharlanna would incorporate a stronger representation of public librarians. I hope that, within the context of the Bill, the Minister of State and his officials might take note of this because it is only right and fair. There is merit in the argument that the people at the coal face, the librarians themselves, should have access to An Chomhairle Leabharlanna through its membership. The General Council of County Councils is also anxious to get a piece of the pie, so I suppose the Minister must balance the various views in deciding how the membership should be drawn.

The Minister has been requested to ensure where at all possible that the role of the library authority, as defined in the Bill, will be to the forefront in disseminating information for Departments, local authorities, the European Union, State agencies, etc. The reason for this is that the old concept of a public library has long since passed. It is not simply a building which houses books where one potters about in a musty environment, is told to keep quiet whenever one coughs, quietly tiptoe up to the desk where there is an intimidating librarian asking pointed questions and then quietly leave. Our libraries have expanded their role to such an extraordinary degree that the buzz word "information highway" could be readily applied to our public library system.

Since the information highway runs through every public library, it is vital that the library authority and, by extension, libraries themselves be given as much encouragement as possible to disseminate all the information coming from various sources. It also goes without saying that the necessity for the library authority to employ professionally qualified librarians is essential.

Section 33 is also of concern to the library association and it has put forward several amendments for consideration by the Minister. I am not so naive as to anticipate that the Minister will respond as generously in this area as he has in the financial area. However, it is important as a matter of record that I indicate to the Minister the areas of concern.

Section 33 (1) states: "A library authority may take such measures". The library association was anxious that this should be changed to "shall" because it felt that it was very wide in its brief and perhaps some local authorities might opt out of their obligations in this area. The association drew attention to the new provision — on which I will dwell in a moment — in relation to archives and local records where there is a statutory obligation on the local authority to provide all the necessary facilities, and quite rightly. The library association is asking why the word "shall" was not included in section 33 in relation to the other functions of the library authority.

Under the old Bill section 67 covers archives, in the new Bill section 65 deals with the matter. I enthusiastically welcome its provisions relating to records and archives of local authorities. It is long past time that the State intervened to ensure that the mass of local records, archives and history were properly documented and available for public inspection. This section of the Bill is far-sighted and the Minister and his Departmental officials are to be complimented for including it.

It is very easy if you are in opposition, either at local level or within this House, to criticise the Government for not providing enough money for roads. As a member of a local authority which debated the recent road allocation I look forward with great interest and not a little excitement to the Minister's forthcoming announcement on the extra allocation for county and regional roads——

Mr. Belton

From where will it come?

Mr. Mooney

It has been an easy option for the Opposition to lambaste the Government for not spending enough. It reminds me of a story I was told once by a Minister who said that, irrespective of how much we spend, there will always be somebody who says we are not doing enough.

Mr. Belton

Even Gay Byrne was criticising them this morning and he is not on this side of the House.

Mr. D. Kiely

He gives out all the time.

Mr. Mooney

Well, I hardly think that politicians wish to be equated with entertainers in attempting to attract an audience.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

We thought you attempted both, Senator.

Mr. Belton

He is a broadcaster, not an entertainer.

Mr. Mooney

I am sure the merit of their argument would stand up on its own in this House and elsewhere. I am only attempting to make the point——

Mr. Belton

Is the Senator blaming Fine Gael for the potholes?

Mr. Mooney

——that the weather has been so bad over the last six months it would have been criminal for any engineering section of a local authority to attempt to do any remedial work on the roads but that does not detract from the urgency of dealing with the county road network. A radical proposal was put to me by an engineer a few weeks ago which I thought might be worthy of consideration. He said that all the money being set aside for national primary roads under the Government's development plan should be suspended for a suitable period during which these moneys could be allocated to local authorities for county and regional roads. That would be the final chapter in the sorry saga of the local road network. There would be a certain merit in telling Brussels that we will not spend any more money on by-passes or widening roads for two or three years because the money will be used to improve local roads.

Mr. Belton

What about Jamestown?

Mr. Mooney

People in Jamestown do not want the by-pass either although it is supposed to be progress. I only wish to make the point, as other Senators have, that the county road network in this country is a shambles and I am pleased to note that the Government, and the Minister specifically, is aware of that. I know it is the business of the Opposition to constantly remind the Minister of the day——

Mr. Belton

The Senator has just lambasted the Opposition.

Mr. Mooney

Well, Fianna Fáil is a free and democratic party. Perhaps that is not allowed in Fine Gael.

Mr. Belton

He brought the wrath of the Opposition on his own head.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Mooney without interruption, please.

Mr. Mooney

I am quite happy to be critical because I know that in doing so I am in sympathy and in tune, not only with the Minister but with the Minister of State who is fully aware of the realities of the bad roads. When the Opposition was in Government from 1982 to 1987, they spent no money on the maintenance of county roads; at least we are making an effort.

Mr. Belton

That is a myth.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. I had hoped it would be termed the local government reorganisation and reform Bill but, unfortunately, that is not its title. In effect what we had all expected and hoped for many months has not come to fruition. Both Government parties, in presenting their Programme for Government, said they would introduce major reform in local government. All local authorities and local public representatives expected that this Bill would entail major reform and reorganisation of local government and confirm many of the speeches by Members of the Government over the past year about bringing power to local level. Unfortunately, it literally gives no additional power to local authorities, it merely centralises further the power of the Minister and the Department, and reduces the powers of the elected members locally.

We have heard waffle and pious platitudes from the Government parties over the past 16 months in regard to local government but this Bill is just a technical one empowering the Minister to take further action in relation to local authorities and how they manage their affairs.

It has been decided that local elections will not take place until 1998 and that local elections for town commissioners and urban district councils will take place this year. However, the Bill does not address the fundamental issue of the extension of boundaries, functions or the financing of local authorities by giving them power to raise local finance. Local authorities will not have power until they have the ability to raise finance themselves and this Government has failed to tackle that issue.

Since 1977 the powers and functions of local authorities have decreased. The reality is that their financial abilities have also decreased. When Fianna Fáil withdrew the rates from domestic dwellings in 1977 and failed to address the issue of agricultural rates in some other form, it made a promise that it would replace the moneys the local authorities would accrue from those sources by providing grants from central Government. No local authority since then has ever received funding from central Government to match what was raised in rates. The result is that every county council has lost millions of pounds that could have been used locally for roads, housing or other services. County roads have been damaged as a result of successive Government policies for funding local authorities. It was hoped the Bill would address that issue but it has not addressed the issue of financing, it has only dealt with the technical management of local authorities.

Parts of this Bill give various powers to the Minister, in particular section 32, which goes into great detail about the specifics of what the Minister is empowered to do in relation to local authorities. The section provides that the Minister "may by regulation make provisions in respect of all or any local authorities in respect of meetings, procedures or to any matter arising in connection therewith or related thereto." In that section the Minister empowers himself to make regulations regarding such fine details as the place, date and time of local authority meetings and how local authorities will conduct their business.

This section grossly insults the dignity and honour of elected local public representatives. It is a vote of no confidence in local public representatives and local authorities to conduct their business in an orderly and responsible fashion. The Minister and the Government should recognise local public representatives as people interested in, committed to and responsible for their communities. Instead, the Minister treats such individuals as if they were children unable to manage their affairs. Section 32 is an insult and should be removed from this Bill.

The Bill supposedly gives power to the local authority. In section 37 the local authority is given the power to make by-laws in a number of areas. However, under section 45 the Minister may by regulation put into force a series by-laws for local authorities as he or she sees fit. In one section the Bill empowers the local authority and in another section it withdraws that power by allowing the Minister to supersede the powers given to the local authority in previous sections. The Bill contradicts itself. It appears to give power to local authorities when, in effect, it centralises that power in the Department of the Environment and the Minister.

It is unfortunate that the Bill should take this course. There is huge potential to enhance and develop local enterprise and communities through local authority representatives, the professional staff and the power and functions of local authorities. That issue has not been addressed.

We had hoped that this Bill would offer the opportunity to deal with the financial issue. Unless our roads are brought to a reasonable standard we will see increasing numbers of people fleeing from rural communities particularly in the west of Ireland. We have unfortunately seen too many areas denuded of population. The Government has made a number of commitments to the promotion of tourism and has acknowledged its importance to job creation. If tourism is to create jobs it can only do so if tourists have access to the attractive and isolated areas of this country. Unless there is a proper road network a tourist industry cannot grow. The Minister should address that issue but, unfortunately, he has not done so in this Bill. It is in the context of the development of rural communities and for the future of local authorities. The potential is there but the Minister has not recognised it.

A Minister should not have the power to defer local authority elections at his or her discretion. Our Constitution directs that elections to the Oireachtas should be held at least every five years. There is no reason why local authorities should not hold elections every five years. It is important that local elections be held regularly and that they are not held on an ad hoc basis whereby Ministers choose the date according to their wishes. That fundamental reform should be included in this Bill.

Mr. D. Kiely

It is in the Bill.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

It is not stated specifically. The Bill says that there shall be elections in 1998 but it empowers the Minister to change the date after that. European elections are held every five years and elections to the Oireachtas must be held every five years. Why should local authority elections be treated different from other elections? That should be dealt with in this Bill.

I welcome the fact that the Bill gives statutory recognition for the first time to the General Council of County Councils as a representative body of local authorities. However, in giving recognition, the Bill should also give the council added powers, responsibilities and functions.

Many of the issues which the Minister should have tackled through this legislation have been hived off to a commission which will be established to examine a number of issues in local government. I am concerned about the restrictions imposed on the powers of the commission, the areas it will examine and on which it will report. There should be an open arrangement with the commission having power to do what it thinks best in the interest of local government.

On reading the report on local government reform published in 1990, one would wonder how relevant it is to the Bill. What impact had the Barrington report on this legislation? Unfortunately, there is little evidence that either of the reports was taken into serious consideration in the drafting of this legislation.

The General Council of County Councils is particularly concerned about section 46 and wish to have the Bill amended so that the Minister's power to remove elected members of local authorities from office can only be exercised when an independent commission or a tribunal has also examined the case. This is a significant point. Recently local authorities have been on the brink of disbandment due to inability to strike a rate and their dissatisfaction with funding from central Government. This brings us back to the fundamental power of the local authority to raise finance. If the local authority has inadequate finance to function properly under local authority legislation, it is of huge concern for the members. There is a fundamental problem if members are unable to strike a rate or agree on estimates for a given year. The Minister, who has a vested interest in this, should not be the person to adjudicate on whether a local authority should continue to exist. That should be decided by an independent body which will assess the problem and make a judgment. The Minister should only be empowered to take such action when the commission has made its decision. I hope the Minister will look at this on Committee Stage.

Revenue is the fundamental issue. Increasingly, local authorities are obliged to raise service charges to try to meet the daily demands of its area. That causes much conflict and distress. Local authorities are operating on a shoestring and are increasingly unable to proceed with their work.

One welcome provision of the Bill is section 57 which empowers the Local Government Reorganisation Commission to safeguard the primacy of county councils within the local authority structure. County councils must be recognised as the primary local authorities but that will only happen if they have clout and they will only have clout if they have funding. Until that is done there will continue to be a crisis in local government.

Mr. Byrne

I welcome the Minister. We are fortunate that both the Minister, Deputy Smith, and the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, are former members of local authorities. While I welcome the Bill there are parts I find unsatisfactory. The first is that an Oireachtas Member can no longer be mayor of his town or chairman of his county council. That is a step in the wrong direction. Whatever party is in Government, Oireachtas Members are a great link between Government and local authorities. They arrange and lead deputations arguing for funds for housing, roads, etc. I doubt that chairing a local authority would interfere with their position.

Some Members have dual mandates in Dublin and Europe, which is more demanding. Members of this House have been MEPs and there has been no claim of a conflict of interest or that they could not pay due attention to both jobs. It is not clear where the demand for this change came from. The system operates in both directions. Oireachtas Members can bring notice to Ministers of problems which might have escaped the attention of Departments. They might also have more sensible solutions, as Senator D'Arcy and Senator Mooney said.

In local authorities the issue is not how much funds are received but how they are spent. I have been a local authority member for 27 years and I believe we have become top heavy with officials. Road workers are now an endangered species. If one retires or dies, he is not replaced. However we have plenty of officials to say they cannot do something because there is no money. For every pound received from Brussels or from Irish taxpayers, local authorities have scarcely 15 pence to spend on roads. The system is now standing on its head. This is not a reflection on our excellent officials, who work as well as they can within the system, but the system has become top heavy.

We also spend too much money on consultants, who are hired at enormous expense. County managers say the Department pays for a particular project, as if the money was found somewhere outside Leinster House. The money comes from the taxpayer, whether in Ireland or Europe. The county manager system has outlived its purpose because managers now have too much power.

It has been said on both sides of the House today that common sense is better than all the consultants one can hire at vast expense. One water extension was costed at £80,000. A councillor questioned the figure but the manager insisted that was the price. There was some discussion and the councillor said if he was given the job he would do it for half the cost and he was willing to have the council oversee the work.

We are given global figures and, as Senator Roche said, one would have to be an economist to digest them. The overall cost is spread throughout the books. Local authorities select people to look after problems, whether potholes on roads, water schemes, sewerage schemes, housing, etc. It does not matter what Government is in power, money will be gobbled up and the problems remain. We do not get value for money, no matter who gives it.

It may be that not enough attention is given to problems when they are highlighted by councillors. Engineers and overseers inspect problems, accompanied by a clerk in case their pens are too heavy. The report goes back to the county manager and the county secretary, who decide whether they can undertake the work. This means plenty of money has been spent before anything is done.

Because of all this supervision one can never find officials. If one rings a local authority office looking for the county manager or assistant county manager they are always out. They seem to be on a grand circuit of Ireland on refresher courses, interview boards, etc. County councillors are often targeted for abuse, as are road workers, but is that where money is being lost? Is everyone carrying his weight? Are we getting value for money? I think we are not.

A by-pass was built near my home in Cahir and the money squandered there was a national scandal. We as councillors could do nothing about it — we could raise the matter but the manager had supreme power. The by-pass was not properly built and the road leading to the town has been badly designed. The people will have to live with these major mistakes but those who made the errors are no longer around. They will go on to better pastures and come back in a few years as consultants. We are caught in this cycle and the public does not know what is happening.

The Minister must tell county managers to get on with their jobs or he will strip them of their powers. They have all the power at present and will give many reasons why a job cannot be done. They will say the Minister will not give any more money. The problem is not the money but how it is spent. The abuse will have to stop because it has already gone too far. The public is tired of the problems and wants to know what has happened to the money.

Senator Taylor-Quinn spoke about roads. The record of this Government is far better than that of its predecessor. Very little money was spent on county roads from 1982 to 1986. If a road is allowed to deteriorate, it will eventually fall apart because of heavy agricultural and industrial traffic. After this year, which was the wettest in living memory, the problem was bound to get worse and the costs will be enormous.

We have layers of qualified engineers and consultants but they are telling staff to throw shovels of gravel into potholes. That was done in Victorian times and in effect it is throwing money into the road. The next truck that passes will throw the gravel into the ditch. That is no way to approach the problem and perhaps these people do not even care.

No matter what party we belong to we all have a responsibility to ensure we get value for money. If the manager does not listen the Minister should tell him to do something or more power will be given to councillors. It should be stipulated that if a manager has a project which costs a certain amount, he should have to go with councillors on a deputation to the Minister. There should be also be a backup service for councillors, as Senator Roche said. The manager has highly paid staff on his side who can blind councillors with figures. Local authority members become stifled and an independent system to adjudicate on such reports would be welcome. We might then get more value for money.

There are many worthwhile measures in the Bill. I hope it will improve the lot of councillors and of the public. However it has not tackled the problem of voting. The previous Minister, now Commissioner Flynn, tried to change voting days. Throughout Europe most people vote on Friday, Saturday or Sunday. Between 65,000 and 80,000 students are deprived of the right to vote in their own constituency because elections are held in the middle of the week. It is difficult for most parents, even if they get a grant, to keep students in regional colleges or universities and it is more difficult for those who do not get the grant. I speak from experience in this area. As legislators we should give those students the opportunity to vote in their own constituencies because their parents cannot afford to pay travel expenses and it could interfere with their studies and examinations. If they travel to the country in the middle of the week, why should it be at their parents' expense? Why should elections not be held at the end of the week?

There are vested interests involved in this issue because the election machinery for a general election, a presidential election or a referendum could disturb certain people in permanent employment and others I will not mention. That is a national scandal because the voter has been placed second. Some 65,000 to 80,000 students are deprived of the opportunity to vote. The Minister must tell those people with vested interests that if an election is called he decides when it should be held, not the bureaucrats, who might be disturbed at the weekend, or those who are well paid in the middle of the week — and I will not say who they are — or those who raise objections, including the clergy and sporting organisations. A vote is precious because we waited 700 years for a national Government. Young people should be given the opportunity to vote in their own constituency. Certain individuals have said that they can vote where they are staying. That is an unfair comment. We should move away from the Victorian system of holding elections on a Wednesday or Thursday.

Agriculture is our most important industry and the advisory body, which was once called ACOT, is now known as Teagasc. Over the last ten years money was scarce and an embargo was placed on the employment of extra staff, including typists and agricultural advisers. Employment in our main industry was frozen. However, the county manager could employ as many consultants, permanent engineers, typists and advisers as he wanted. Our priorities are wrong. We cut off assistance which could generate jobs for people, but we left an open door to the county manager and various other Departments.

We are building monsters to produce leaflets explaining why something cannot be done. It cannot be done because the old system is using the money and there is none left for other projects. This is not a reflection on the staff, but the system has grown so big it is not serving its purpose. The system sends out letters explaining that there is no money left because the staff must be paid before gravel is put on the roads. The Minister is then blamed. This must be considered.

In future I hope more work is put out to tender because we would get better value for money. It is 20 years since I pointed out to my county manager that Northern Ireland puts contracts out to tender for the repair of its roads, which are in great condition. It was able to get the work done for 50 per cent less per mile than we could. At last we have realised this. Various lobby groups prevented that happening through the years as if the contractors were niggers. They were Irish people providing good jobs. If they do a good job quickly and cheaply, they should be employed and we would be able to repair many miles of road.

Our management system is crazy and the public are suffering. I hope we are more responsible when spending EU funding on our by-passes. What happened in my area, where money was treated as if it was out of date and managers covered up for mistakes, should not be allowed to happen again. Because EU funds are becoming scarce, I am sure the officials from Brussels will keep a closer eye on the situation. That is correct because if we abuse the system it will not remain for too long.

I welcome the Bill, but I would like other sections to be included in it. The Minister might consider it in the years ahead.

Mr. Naughten

I join with other speakers in welcoming the Minister to the House because he has a lot of experience in local government. It is unfortunate the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Smith, is not here because we are dealing with legislation which we have not had the opportunity to discuss. It does not matter what amendments we put forward because the Minister will not accept them due to the time limit placed on this Bill. I cannot understand the way this legislation, which is further curtailing the powers of local authorities, has been rushed through the Houses of the Oireachtas. As Senator Howard clearly stated this morning, we are dealing with a Bill which has 68 sections and refers to 95 Acts. The Minister is abusing this House by asking us to deal with this Bill in two days. I accept the difficulties which the Leader of the House had to face in dealing with this Bill today, but I suggest that the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Deputy Browne, should convey the disappointment of the House to the Minister and the Government on the way they have treated the House.

This Bill further erodes the powers of local authorities. This Government and its predecessor introduced this curtailment of power over the last five to seven years. The county committees of agriculture, the local health committees and the sheep dipping committees have been abolished, as have the local authorities members associations because the local authorities' hands have been tied with regard to sending delegates to those meetings. The vocational education committees will be axed and now the powers of elected local authority members have been severely curtailed. This legislation is further interference in the local authority system. I find it difficult to understand how the members of the Minister's parliamentary party allowed him to bring this obnoxious legislation before this House.

Local authorities have served this country well over the last 100 years, despite the continual interference of central Government. Domestic rates were removed in 1977 and no replacement funding was provided for local authorities when this means of funding was withdrawn. Local services should be paid for locally, which would mean a reduction in personal taxation. We have all served as members of local authorities and we know the way they have been strangled for finance. This cannot continue.

Recently restrictions on meetings in some local authority areas were introduced. This is another scandal for which the Minister, Deputy Smith, is responsible. I am a member of a local authority which does its work in a businesslike fashion and we do not hold meetings for the sake of doing so. I do not remember — I have been a member of a local authority for 20 years — a time when we were able to get through the agenda, whether dealing with motions or statutory functions which must be carried out. However, these matters were eventually dealt with in a businesslike fashion. Last year we held 37 meetings; this year we are limited to 30. Other local authorities have been restricted to 40, 50 or 60 meetings. The county of the Acting Chairman, Senator Belton, and mine are tied to the same band of 30 meetings. If one considers the county development plan, estimates and the normal monthly meetings of the county council, there will not be sufficient time to complete this business.

This Bill prevents certain Members from becoming a member of a local authority. Nobody questions whether an MEP or a Government Minister should be a member of a local authority because we know they would not have the time. It is crazy to prevent certain chairmanships of committees from becoming members of a local authority. We are all circularised with the number of meetings these committees hold and nobody in this House could say the additional workload would prevent that member from carrying out his functions as a local authority member. It is an unwarranted interference in regard to the right of the citizen, they will no longer be able to vote for their preferred choice in a local election because that candidate will not be eligible to be on the ticket.

One must question why the Minister should decide that certain people are no longer eligible to become the cathaoirleach or the leas-chathaoirleach of their local authority. This is another unwarranted interference in the running of a local authority. I do not understand why the Minister has taken this power upon himself. He seems to be hell bent on destroying local authorities.

Another anomaly in the Bill — and there are many — is that the Cathaoirleach of Seanad Éireann may not be a member of a local authority. One must not forget that he is elected, by and large, by local authority members. I could understand the inclusion of that clause if the Cathaoirleach was automatically returned. However, the position of Cathaoirleach differs from that of the Ceann Comhairle who is automatically returned after a general election. At present he must go to his colleagues in local authorities to seek their support in being re-elected to this House. Under this Bill they will no longer be his colleagues because he will not be elected to the county council. The next Cathaoirleach of this House will face that difficulty when trying to secure re-election because he will not be seen to be a member of a local authority. The implications of this have not been thought through, it is another act of lunacy enshrined in this legislation.

The document circulated by the General Council of County Councils, the representative body of county councils throughout the country, has been referred to on a number of occasions. This document states that the Bill is an erosion of the functions of county councils and a continuation of inadequate funding. The Bill increases the powers of the Minister responsible for local government over local authorities. I share the view of the General Council of County Councils in this regard. I raise this matter because when the question of expenses and the alterations of local authority members arose some months ago, the Minister was quick to say that local authority members voted for it but that was because they did not know what was involved. A lot of the fine print in the legislation was only discovered after it was handed down by county managers or county secretaries. The Minister was untruthful in what he said. Members voted on a clear understanding that the situation would continue as before and that their right to hold meetings and to carry out their functions would not be infringed. That was not the situation when the new regulations were introduced. The General Council of County Councils said this Bill must be amended, but the Minister did not agree. It will be put through on a guillotine motion tomorrow and will become law.

The question of boundary changes is close to my heart. Five urban boundaries will be extended to another county. Two of these happen to be extended into my county — Athlone will extend west into south Roscommon and Ballinasloe will extend east into south Roscommon, it defies explanation. We spent large sums of money on major water, sewage and housing schemes and on a major industrial site with good industrial employers in the environs of Athlone over the past two decades. The boundary is now being extended for election purposes, the urban boundary is only two steps down the road. People do not want to become part of the urban area, they want to remain in County Roscommon. The same may be said of those in Ballinasloe. I do not know from where this Bill came or why it is before the House, it has no merit, good, bad or indifferent.

Many speakers referred to Sunday voting. I share their view and I have spoken about this on many occasions. Members who come from rural areas are aware of the number of people, including students, prevented from voting simply because they live in an urban area 50, 60 or 70 miles away. It is impossible for them to travel to where their vote is registered. I raised in this House the question of a returning officer who stated that if a student was living in Dublin or Galway that was his home, despite the fact that his parents were paying for his education, his post was sent to his home or his grant paid by his local authority. Amending legislation was introduced to regularise the position the following year by the then Minister for the Environment, Mr. Flynn, who is now an EU Commissioner. As in other European countries, we should have Sunday voting.

Many speakers referred to the appalling condition of county roads I do not mind how these roads are repaired. If money must be transferred from national primary roads to repair the damage done to our county roads then so be it. Our county roads must receive funding because they are the lifeline to rural villages in which milk and beef are produced and transported to the local creamery or factory. In the west, contractors will not go into certain farms to cut silage because of damage to their machinery caused by potholes. I agree with Senator Byrne about the abuse of national road funding.

The Minister should investigate the abuse of money on the national primary route between Athlone and Kinnegad, which has to be seen to be believed. I know Senator Howard travels that road occasionally. There was a hill of tarmacadam; a perfectly good road, a national primary route, one of the most important in the country, was raised four feet, over the fences and hedges and a huge drop was filled with a very expensive layer of filling and then over a foot of tarmacadam. This is criminal. There are bends on other parts of that road which one can scarcely negotiate and the road has not been touched for over 30 years. There is a complete contradiction there which I cannot understand. On parts of the road seven or eight feet of filling prevents water getting to the drainage pipes and we now have flooding that was never there before. This is ludicrous and I respectfully suggest that it should be examined.

I have expressed my reservations about this Bill and my disgust with it. I regret very much that it will be passed. This House and local authorities will be all the worse for it.

Mr. R. Kiely

I will not delay the House long. The Minister said that local government reform is not about change for the sake of change. Having listened to Senator Byrne tell us about the powers of his county manager, some reform is needed and power must be given back to the councillors. In the Dáil this Bill was reduced by two sections. Section 25 and section 11 which dealt with attendance at council meetings were deleted.

On local authority membership, the dual mandate was discussed and speakers said they did not agree with Members of the Oireachtas not contesting elections or being chairmen of local authorities. I have no problem with this. Senator Naughten said the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad cannot contest the next local authority election and that it will interfere with his prospects of being re-elected to this House.

I am not a member of a local authority. I sought election to a local authority in 1974. I contested a general election in 1969, but failed to be elected by 22 votes on the second last count. I failed to get a nomination to contest a local election which surprised me and others, but it did not interfere with my election to this House. I was elected on six occasions out of seven and hope to be elected a few more times.

The fact that I am not a member of a local authority did not interfere with my election to this House because I have always kept in contact with the members of local authority, my electorate, and I have the greatest respect for them. Local authority members are voluntary public representatives, who have to mind their jobs and serve the people. They are subject to abuse, in public houses people ask them for silly things which they could get themselves and they are expected to subscribe to any fund-raising project or event being staged locally and this can be expensive. I would like to see the expenses of members of county councils and corporations being further improved to cover telephone and postal expenses and so on.

Current law on local authority meetings is obscure and section 30 is an attempt to improve this although it was criticised. I appreciate the Minister of State, Deputy Browne's assertion that there is no question of the Department interfering with the workings of local authorities and that what is in question is much needed reform as recommended in the White Paper on local government reform in the early 1970s and more recently in the Barrington report. He also assured Senators that there will be full consultation with local authorities and the best existing practice will be followed. I have no worries about this section which many Senators fear. Councillors will not be worried about it either.

The Minister referred to the local authority library service and intends to allocate extra funds to it. It is essential that we have an adequate library service. It is a necessary social amenity. I also welcome the section dealing with local archives. I welcome the Bill and I am sure that when it is implemented it will be seen to improve local government, especially the lot of the county councillors.

Mr. Belton

I congratulate Senator Kiely on surviving all those elections.

This Bill pretends to deal with a problem. The Minister is aware of the functions of local authorities, or their lack of functions in recent years which arose through the dishonouring of the local authority system by the Government, the Department of the Environment and by the Minister for Finance who have completely depleted the system.

Comments made here earlier today suggest that people on this side of the House have no memory. It was suggested that during the 1983-1987 Government the local authorities were starved of funding for county roads. I challenge that statement and would ask the Members on the other side of the House to check it out. It is easy to find out how much funding came from the Government to each local authority during those years. They will find out that at present half the amount that was spent ten years ago is now being spent on the county road system. That has come about through a total let down by this Government and the previous Government on this funding.

In an undeveloped country the first element that has to be put in place is a road system, so that people who want to travel in the country, to carry out farming or industry or to visit as tourists can do so. It is common sense that the roads should come first and one does not have to be a genius to know it. In this country, under this Government, that message has not got through. I was on a deputation from my local authority to the Minister some months ago and we raised the matter of funding for the county roads. Before we had the words out the Minister told us that there would be no extra funding. Our allocation this year is down on last year, and it includes an amount of money for the pilot scheme.

I was watching television the other evening and the Minister for the Environment was in County Monaghan. People from County Monaghan and County Cavan staged a protest to show the Minister — as if he did not know already — their dissatisfaction with the condition of the roads in these counties. Not long ago people from my county of Longford came to protest outside the gates of Leinster House to the Minister for the Environment, the Minister for Finance and the Taoiseach — their TD — about the condition of the roads in County Longford. Nothing was done. However, when the Minister for the Environment was in Monaghan there were many people present to show their disapproval and, suddenly, the Minister said that over the next seven years he would spend £1 billion on county roads. What a laugh.

Not too many years ago the present Irish Commissioner — who, incidentally, if he wants to stand for election to a local authority cannot now do so — said that the day of the pothole was gone.

Mr. D. Kiely

He was right. He fixed all the potholes but the roads around them deteriorated.

Mr. Belton

That is what he said and it all came back to me the other evening watching the present Minister for the Environment. I said to myself "Here we go again." The residents of Counties Monaghan, Cavan and Longford will still be going through the potholes. Children going out to catch a school bus will still have to wade through the pools of water.

In the meantime the Minister talks about reforming local government to give local authorities more strength and status. What the Minister and his predecessors have given us is more potholes. The joke is over. In my county over £1 million is collected in car tax and that money has to go into central funds. Most people think, quite logically, that if car tax is paid in a county that the money should be spent on roads, especially given their present state. However, the money has to go into central funds because that is where the grants come from to fix the roads. This might sound confusing; one might get dizzy avoiding all the potholes.

If the Minister is serious about taking action then he must address the problems of counties such as Longford, which are suffering from the rapid decay of the road system. It is a crisis and the fund has gone out of it — even Mr. Gay Byrne was serious about the matter on the radio this morning. For many years potholes were a joke but people now know that they are not a joke. It is a national disaster. Over the next five years the Minister must allow counties in crisis to spend the car tax money on the county roads. I know I will be told that if that happens the counties would not get their other allocations. However, people who buy petrol or diesel pay a tax on it which goes into central funds, so the counties are entitled to an allocation from central funds regardless of the car tax. I suggest that the Minister leaves the money in the counties and allows the local officials to spend the money on county roads.

Many issues have been raised relating to the local authorities. There is no replacement of workers who retire. The Government will negotiate a new pay round in agreement with the social partners and it is right that workers get an increase. However, the local authority has to pay that increase without getting any increase in its funding. This is hard to believe but it is true. If the Minister is serious about this matter, he should get down to the nitty gritty by sorting out the funding of local authorities and restoring them to the status they held in 1977. If he did that, he could introduce many Bills, but they would not be welcome under this system.

I found it hard to believe my eyes when I saw in the Bill a provision stating that a member of a local authority elected by the people could not be the chairman of that authority. I have a personal interest in this matter. After the last local elections, my group on Longford County Council proposed me a candidate for the chairmanship of that council. I did not go forward, partly because I was a Member of the other House. While I would have been greatly honoured to hold that position, I felt that one of my colleagues should be given the chance. I made that decision myself. How, in any democracy, can a Minister dictate to local authority members who they put in the chair of that authority? I can understand this restriction applying to enterprise boards. The Minster for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Quinn, has laid down rules that members of local authorities cannot become chairmen of enterprise boards; he has the power to appoint the members of these boards. However, this Minister has suddenly decided to tell democratically elected representatives whom they can choose as chairman. There should be a choice. The Minster should not interfere in such matters.

I would like to raise many other issues and I will do so on Committee Stage.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr. Browne,

Wexford): I thank Senators who contributed to the debate. I acknowledge the positive remarks of various Members on the Bill. I also acknowledge the fact that some Opposition speakers, although critical of some aspects of the Bill, could at least see and acknowledge its various merits.

A number of issues were raised during the debate. There was also some criticism that the Bill did not go far enough, which I do not accept. The overall reform programme implemented over the past few years, which is continued by this Bill, will have potentially radical effects on local authority activities. No longer is opportunity confined and restricted. The legal framework now allows for initiative, development, adaptation and growth in local approaches tailored to local circumstances.

The provisions of this Bill cannot be taken in isolation. Local government reform is, of necessity, an ongoing matter and a progressive exercise and it is being pursued on a wide front. Not only did the Local Government Act, 1991, provide for changes, but the same principle of giving greater power and direction to local authorities, particularly local authority services, is reflected in other legislation. For example, the Roads Act, 1993, ended ministerial involvement in various matters. The Road Traffic Bill, which was recently passed by the Oireachtas, brought further significant advances in this direction.

The Road Traffic Bill greatly strengthens the position of local authorities in the regulation and management of traffic and parking in their areas. Effectively, local authorities will become the primary authorities, in place of the Garda Commissioner, in the implementation of local controls. Much bureaucracy, red tape and the delay that different Senators referred to in this debate will be eliminated in future. Local authorities will become the by-law making authority on speed limits and will have discretion on the location of traffic signs etc.

I was disappointed to hear some Members speak about the inability of local authorities to achieve worthwhile results due to alleged lack of funding or powers. As Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, I have travelled around much of the country over the last year. I have met many county councils and opened many worthwhile projects initiated by county and urban district councils and local authorities. I could provide an extensive list of extremely successful projects developed by local authorities. The Dundalk local authorities recently set up a museum and library in an old distillery building. Carlow Urban District Council set up a new museum and arts and heritage centre. Kerry and Cork County Councils have been greatly involved in the operation of the Cork-Swansea ferry. Limerick Corporation has developed a new civic centre. In my own area, Wexford Corporation has a European award winning museum and heritage centre and there is also the heritage park in County Wexford. Kilkenny County Council has developed a civic trust. One could go on mentioning the number of developments initiated by local authorities. I congratulate these county councillors; I was a former county councillor myself. They know what is important to the area they represent. I see a major role for county councillors in the future.

The Minister is trying to expand, develop and give more independence to county councillors and other local authority members. There is no intention, either by this Minister or the Department, to put shackles on them. The Minister wants to see initiative rewarded and the local authorities become the local point for local people. That is as it should be.

There were also many calls for additional funding. What the Senators are really calling for is more taxation or cuts in expenditure. There is no bottomless pit that the Department can take money from every time a county councillor or a politician shouts for extra funding for local authorities. The Minster has fought a successful battle at the cabinet table to ensure the Department of the Environment gets at least its fair share of what is on offer from the national cake and that local authorities get as much as possible to fund their operations, both on a daily and a yearly basis.

County roads have been referred to by all sides of the House. It is generally accepted that those roads are not in great condition. One must also accept that we have experienced five months of the worst weather in the history of the State. It would have been a waste of public funds to get county councils to fill potholes during that inclement weather. Now that the weather is improving, I hope the councils will ensure that county roads are repaired as quickly as possible to ensure they are brought up to the required standard. The Government is providing £28.3 million this year for maintenance and local authorities will have wide discretion as to the manner in which grants are distributed as between county, regional or urban road categories. Overall State grants for non-national roads will total a record £101 million in 1994, an increase of 35 per cent on last year's figure. The provision of £33.6 million for non-national roads this year will be allocated by the Minister in the next few weeks for a new scheme of specific grants. They in turn will qualify for aid from the European Union for road improvements which have a siginficant and quantifiable economic impact in such areas as employment, tourism, agriculture and rural development.

Many sceptics and critics of the Minister said he was not going to receive any EU funding, but he has been successful in that area. It is important — and this has been clearly laid down by Mr. Bruce Millan and the EU Commission — that EU funding should not be used to fill potholes which reappear a week later, if funding is used on road development the roads must be rebuilt to last, with proper foundations. The present situation, where massive amounts of money are spent on county roads which revert to their old position within two or three months, must end.

In this respect, it is time to consider seriously whether we are getting value for money and if the job is being done properly. Given the amount of money spent over the past five years, I believe, like the Minister, that, in view of the standard of our roads, we are not getting value for money and not undertaking the job as it should be done. In consequence, I hope that the county managers, county engineers and the councillors get the message that if funds are to be made available from the Government and the EU, such funding must be granted in respect of jobs which are long term and that this time next year we will not have to criticise the state of county roads.

Repairs to county roads cannot be undertaken instantly. I was especially pleased that Senator Belton mentioned a five year plan. If the county roads are to be improved to the required standard, it will not be done between now and the end of 1994. The Minister made it clear last week that £1 billion would be required over five to six years to restore the roads to the standard required. Senator Belton can take it that when the Minister states he will spend £1 billion, it will be spent properly.

I was pleased that Members from all sides of the House supported the idea of an audit system to ascertain if local authorities are getting value for money. When funding is allocated by the EU and there is such emphasis on value for money, politicians should ensure that the authorities we represent are getting value for money.

Regarding the boundary extensions, the 1991 census illustrated that of the 80 town local authorities in the country, 62 had over spilled outdated boundaries involving a total population of over 100,000 people. The Minister decided that before the forthcoming elections as many of these people as possible should be brought into the system, enabling them to vote in the urban elections. In January 1994 the managers were requested to review the boundaries of the 62 towns with a view to having them altered for the elections to bring the built up areas within the town boundary. Proposals for boundary extensions in respect of 56 of the towns concerned have been agreed.

In this respect, Senator Naughten mentioned problems regarding Athlone, Roscommon, Ballinasloe and the County Roscommon part of his constituency. It is always difficult to obtain 100 per cent agreement, but there is agreement on 56 of the towns. The Senator will find this exercise worthwhile. The people whom I represent in the Enniscorthy area, where there has been an extension of the town boundary, are pleased that this happened. They will now be in a position to vote for the people they want in the forthcoming local elections who will be in a position to represent them. In consequence, they will not feel disenfranchised and left out of the system, because in many cases, while they may have been in the county council area, they have a closer allegiance and alliance with the town area and it is, therefore, important for them to vote in the area they wish.

Saturday and Sunday voting was mentioned by Senator Byrne. The Electoral Act, 1992, removed the statutory barrier to voting on Sundays. There is no reason any elections or referendum cannot be taken on a Sunday. On each occasion it is a matter for decision which day should be appointed as a polling day and further legislation on this issue is not required.

There are a number of views in support of Saturday or Sunday voting, but it is not clear that more people would have an opportunity of voting if there are elections or referenda on either of these days rather than midweek as at present. Neither is it clear that voting on Sundays would be the only, or the best way to proceed. For example, it was mentioned that many people go home, especially from regional colleges, at the weekend and that they could vote on Saturday or Sunday. On the other hand, Senator Roche made the point that approximately 300,000 people leave Dublin at weekends and visit holiday homes or different places.

There is a variance of opinion on this issue, but the position is that following the Electoral Act, 1992, this matter can now be considered an option. At some stage a Minister may well decide to have voting on a Saturday or Sunday. However, a further consideration, which must be taken into account and respected, is that some churches do not favour the idea of Sunday voting.

There was criticism that under section 30 of the Bill the Minister was taking too much power. Senator McDonagh referred to meetings, procedures, and the report of a committee on which he served with the managers, the AMAI and representatives from the Department, and he was critical that the section was included in the Bill. On the matter of meetings and procedures, the recommendations, to which the Senator referred, clearly state that matters relating to local authority meetings, elections of chairman, standing orders, etc., are reserved functions. The recommendations state that the law relating to meetings is antiquated, unclear and scattered over many enactments and that it should be consolidated, modernised and made available in a more user friendly format.

The real purpose of section 30 is to give effect to these recommendations. In addition, the Barrington Report recommended that scattered and outdated laws should be brought into line. Furthermore, the 1971 White Paper made the same recommendation. This is what the Minister is doing and he has acted on the recommendations of three different reviews of local authority operations. There is no question of the Minister taking extreme powers or taking action against council meetings. His purpose is to bring the scattered legislation together.

I thank Senators for their contributions on Second Stage. Doubtless there will be further debate on Committee Stage.

Question put and agreed to.

An Cathaoirleach

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Mr. Mullooly

It is proposed to take Committee Stage at 5.30 p.m.

Committee Stage ordered for 5.30 p.m. today.

Sitting suspended at 5 p.m. and resumed at 5.30 p.m.