Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 6 May 1998

Vol. 155 No. 9

Local Government Funding: Motion (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by Senator Coogan on 29 April 1998:

That Seanad Éireann condemns the Government for its failure to adequately consult all interested parties on its plans for the restructuring and financing of Local Government.

Debate resumed on the following amendment:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

"Seanad Éireann welcomes the initiative by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government to enhance and strengthen local democracy and local government, particularly:

— the provision of £125m additional funding as recently provided for in the Local Government Bill, 1998,

— the increased role of councillors through the Strategic Policy Committees,

— the practical commitment to the policy of equalisation being shown by the initiative of needs and resources studies in the local authorities,

— the further commitment to a major package of reform prior to local elections 1999,

— and notes his commitment to dialogue and discussion with all interested parties, including local authority members and local authority representative bodies, and his open invitation to members of the Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government to bring forward ideas."

[Senator Walsh.]

Mr. J. Doyle

I welcome the Minister to the House. On the 100th anniversary of the setting up of the local government system it is appropriate that we should examine its strengths and weaknesses. It can be said without any doubt that the local government system and those who served in it have served this country well. With the abolition of rates in 1977, local government somewhat lost its way and what we now call the democratic deficit set in. Unfortunately, from that date on local authorities became more dependent on central government for funding. I am pleased to note that with the introduction of the Local Government Bill, 1998, the Minister is endeavouring to give back to local authorities some measure of independence through financial measures. I accept the Minister has made strenuous efforts to consult with local authority members but as changes are being made to a system which has been in operation for over 100 years, there is room for ongoing consultation which is the purpose of this motion.

As a member of the premier local authority for the past 20 years I welcome the new changes now proposed. The local authority system in which I and my colleagues in the House have served for the past 20 years and more is becoming tired and is in need of being revamped. In the revamping of local government I welcome the establishment of the SPCs. Some councillors have reservations about these new committees but we should remember the council will remain the primary unit of local democracy and will retain final decision making responsibility. The SPCs, therefore, should not be considered as a threat but rather as an opportunity to reform the role of the elected member.

The new system will motivate elected members to become facilitators for dialogue, positive development and community action at local level. Clearly, this is a dramatic change in the role of the councillor. There will also be a need to concentrate on the development of a strategic focus for the function of local government and, more importantly, the creation of a process of partnership which will facilitate the implementation of strategic planning at local level.

The creation of the SPCs and the successful implementation will give back to local authorities their rightful role in society. For the first time since the foundation of the State, there will be a framework which will recognise the importance of local government and there will be a responsibility on it to establish long-term strategic partnerships at local and regional levels. Personnel in local government at local and regional levels will have to genuinely appreciate the need for and the role of the local councillor.

The motion criticises the Government for its failure to consult with interested parties on the restructuring and financing of local government.

In fairness to the Minister, I attended a number of conferences at which he has consulted widely with local authority members. There is one aspect of the Local Government Bill, 1998 — I do not want to make a Second Stage speech on it — to which I wish to refer. Under the proposals of the former Minister, Deputy Howlin, I understand 85 per cent of the motor taxation fund was being retained by the local authority and 25 per cent was going into an equalisation fund. The Minister proposes that the taxation receipts will go back to central government and that he will divide it out through the local government system. There is a doubt about the mechanism used to give this money back to the local authorities and perhaps the Minister might clarify it. That is a concern which has caused the tabling of this motion.

There is another issue which I find difficult to accept. If, as I wholeheartedly accept, the Minister genuinely intends to give more powers back to local authorities, I find the capping of rates difficult to understand. If a local authority is responsible in the way it spends its money, there should be no capping of rates because that is its sole income. That is important for a city like Dublin. We are entering an interesting time for local government and its restructuring will give a new role to the elected member. For that reason, I welcome the measures the Minister is taking.

Mr. Callanan

I am particularly pleased the Minister is present because he served as a member of a local authority for many years and is aware of the trials and tribulations endured by members of local government bodies. The people are well served by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, and the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, because they are capable and know what local government involves. The motion is unfair because it states that the Minister has not consulted widely. In the short time since his appointment, the Minister has consulted the General Council of County Councils and LAMA and he has also visited most local authorities. In fairness to the Minister, he should be commended for the level of consultation that has taken place.

The debate involves local government and the reform of the local government system but little recognition has been given to county councillors. Many Members are also county councillors. I have been a member of a local authority for a considerable number of years and I know many local authority members throughout the country, some of whom are members of political parties and others are independent. I am not aware of any dishonest or corrupt local authority members. People in the media discuss the elected members of local government but the Minister appreciates their honesty and integrity. It is right that Senators elected by local authority members should pay tribute to them.

Local authority members, whether they are county councillors, urban councillors, town commissioners or corporation members, are people with common sense. They are honest and they work hard on a voluntary basis. It is unfair that allegations are made against people who serve voluntarily and to the best of their ability. They may make mistakes but they are never dishonest.

The functions of a local authority are to provide housing and to maintain roads but its primary role relates to planning and development. Local authorities and their members serve the people well in that regard. By and large, there is partnership between the executive and the members. However, the number of superstores round the country is increasing. Such developments are considered a failure in Europe and Britain and hostile to town and city centres. There is a need for new legislation to control the development of such stores. The planning legislation is no longer sufficient to deal with the number of applications from multinationals for such centres. There are social and planning reasons for stopping the development of superstores which spoil the centres of villages, towns and cities. I urge the Minister to take this matter on board.

I was elected to the Seanad by county councillors and I have served as a member of a local authority for many years. The Minister also served on a local authority and it is time local government members received proper remuneration and compensation for their time. It is not right that elected members should be required by local authorities to attend meetings without proper recompense. The Minister has initiated a review but it should go further. Members may leave local authorities in three ways. He or she may die or may be defeated at an election and a member may also decide that he or she has served long enough. Something should be done for people in those circumstances. It is time to reestablish the county enterprise boards and the regional authorities under the umbrella of local government. The review that is under way should also examine this area.

I congratulate the Minister on the financing of local government. The Minister of State stated that to address the weaknesses in the current financing arrangements, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government has introduced a Bill in the Dáil to provide the legislative basis for a new funding system. He also stated that the key elements are the establishment of a statutory local government fund with effect from 1999 and the financing of non-national road improvements from national motor taxation receipts.

The Minister of State went on to say that a sum of £270 million would be provided in the Department's 1999 Vote for the general purpose requirements of local authorities. It will be ringfenced in legislation and used solely for local government purposes. This sum will be index linked for future years to take account of the additional expenditure needs of local authorities identified in the KPMG report. The financing of local government should also take account of new functions and responsibilities placed on local authorities over the years without the necessary resources. The Minister of State continued that the legislation will contain special measures to ensure that the base line provision in any year can be altered to reflect any changes in the powers, functions and duties of local authorities. This is designed to ensure that no additional demands will be placed on local authorities without matching funding.

The Minister intends to complete the review before 1999. Local authorities provide a small number of services under their own direction and guidance. Over the years central government has kept too tight a grip on local government. It is time the Department was required within a strict time limit to carry out an exercise similar to the strategic management initiative to determine what functions should be devolved to local authorities. All Departments should be included, except perhaps the Departments of Defence and Foreign Affairs. The other Departments, including the Department of Education and Science, Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Social, Community and Family Affairs, should be directed to carry out rigorous devolution studies.

Ireland is exceptional in Europe in that local authorities have no involvement in education or social welfare. There is no reason various local offices of the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs are not joined with local authority offices and managed by local authorities. Local policing must be seriously considered. Over the years traffic, litter and animal wardens have been appointed. There should be one local police force to deal with these areas. This would allow the Garda Síochána to concentrate on major crime. This is the position in most European countries.

I want a local government system where local authorities which represent local communities are in a position to direct the affairs of the community in the name of citizens. Local authorities are representative. As local bodies the local government elections should be held at regular intervals and not postponed except in major emergencies. The worldwide declaration of local self-government includes the following:

Local self-government denotes the right and duty of local authorities to regulate and manage public affairs under their own responsibilities and in the interest of the local population.

Perhaps, in the 21st century Ireland can look forward to that ideal becoming a reality.

Mrs. Ridge

Taking the tenor of Senator Doyle's remark, it is obvious nobody has a stick to beat the Minister. However, I am beginning to worry because, instead of coming to bury Caesar, we are coming to praise him. The Minister will have to be a little interred nevertheless, because the motion refers to wider consultation. If we are truthful, one can never consult enough because someone always has a better way. I am a native Dubliner who is practical with regard to the application of local government and developing my role as a councillor. I am interested in realistic funding mechanisms for local authorities.

Given the major population spread in the greater Dublin area, will the Minister consider returning to the Kenny report in terms of the windfall gain received by people whose land was rezoned by a local authority? I accept one can be helped by an act of God or by finding a gold mine or discovering oil on one's land. It is highly unlikely but when one's land value is enhanced by the direct action of another body for the good of the people, it would be of greater assistance to a local authority if the 40 per cent capital gains tax was collected by it since it made the decision to rezone the land. It is a valid argument, particularly in areas of urban deprivation where the money could be used for realistic local government reform.

Senator Callanan referred to local policing, etc., but I wish to deal with school attendance officers. There should be funding for them and the Minister would do young people a great service if he allowed such funding. Dublin Corporation and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council have such a scheme, but the outer suburbs of Dublin do not, for example, Blanchardstown, Swords, Clondalkin and Tallaght. It is a realistic goal and it would be proper to give funding from the Exchequer to local authorities and provide a simple, positive mechanism of distribution.

I wish to put on record the Minister's almost total availability to local authority members. We are coming from the same viewpoint and I have no doubt if a Fine Gael Minister was holding office, motions would be tabled against him or her in this House also. However, Members are polite and well behaved. We are looking for the best and if a negative must be tabled, it does not matter as it is the results that count. If money was generated through the windfall tax, school attendance and tenant participation schemes could be dealt with and amenities could be enhanced. I appreciate the Minister will always have mandarins guiding him in many directions, but will he consider as a practical possibility giving a percentage of the funding to local authorities in the larger urban areas?

A school meals system should be provided by local authorities similar to those provided by every other European local authority. Regrettably, as a result of drug addiction, alcoholism and the breakdown of parenting, some children do not have an adequate diet and it is incumbent on local authorities to arrange for the provision of same in areas of urban deprivation. Another potential source of income for local authorities is to increase the levies on those who provide take-away and fast food services because they spend a fortune cleaning up after them. The service will still be required and financial owners should be compelled to make a contribution to a cleaner environment because litter is killing this city.

Other forms of consultation might work to everybody's benefit, especially local authorities. I am disappointed at the recent newspaper satisfaction rating of 17 per cent for politicians. Measures such as those I suggested, which would channel funds into local authorities might help to change that perception. My feelings on the erosion of power to local councillors are known. We deserve much better and I support the argument as I do not want to have to die in order to receive a pension. A long-term service payment should be awarded based on the fact that service was given, not whether one failed to be re-elected or opted not to run. If the Minister was a member of my party I would have every confidence in him, but I have a great deal of confidence on him anyway. He is hearing the voices of experience in this debate as they put forward possible proposals.

Ms Ormonde

I congratulate the Minister and welcome him to the House. He knows what consultation is about and has left no stone unturned in his dealings with the General Council of County Councils or councillors. Whenever I ring him or officials from his Department, I receive constructive answers to my concerns.

The debate deals with the reform of local government as we head towards the 21st century. The Minister is taking on a real challenge. His proposal constitutes a radical reform of funding for local authorities, availability of human resources, consultation, customer effectiveness and value for money. Each of these areas presents a challenge to the Minister, local authorities, local councillors and county managers to give a better service to our constituencies and ward areas in the 21st century.

I welcome the shift of power from the centre. In the past councillors had very little power and simply did what the managers said. In my own area of South Dublin within the last few weeks I became aware that in Rathfarnham Castle there was to be a hotel and bar. This was to happen without consultation with the local people or councillors because decisions were taken at the centre. We were, fortunately, not too late to tackle the problem. The Department of the Environment and Local Government and Dúchas were aware of the development. Power must rest with the local people. The Minister must aim for consultation, consultation, consultation. I congratulate the Minister on his awareness of the importance of consultation with local people.

We are dealing with a very educated public. They know before local politicians what is happening in each area. I welcome the new strategic policy groups. I am concerned that the right people will be appointed to the various positions on these groups. What criteria will be used to assess the suitability of those who will represent us in the areas of planning, community or parks? I discussed this matter with the county manager and found that he too, with others, was concerned about this. I hope the right people will be appointed and that they will not have a different agenda from the overall vision for the future of our areas.

South Dublin County Council and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown are new councils and are closely involved with each other. My own area, in South Dublin, is close to the border with Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown. Actions taken by Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown frequently impact on my area but I get very little satisfaction when I consult officials on these matters. They frequently quote the section of the Local Government Act and point out to me that the problem is the responsibility of the neighbouring council. I would like to see a better process of consultation between adjoining councils so that councillors in boundary areas can be consulted on matters which are the responsibility of one council but which impact on another. These problems constitute part of the teething problems which arise when new council areas are established.

I welcome the placing of funding on a statutory basis and the allocation of revenue from motor taxation to local authorities for the road infrastructure. Residents of areas such as Knocklyon and Firhouse often spend an hour and a half on journeys which should take five minutes. I hope we will now have sufficient resources to provide a broad package of local government service. Senator Ridge mentioned the problem of litter. We have established a litter unit in South Dublin but we do not have the resources, either financial or human, to do what is required. Reform depends on adequate funding and human resources. We must also get value for money. Every aspect of local government reform must be examined with a view to making it more efficient and cost effective. The people are crying out for local government reform. We are held in low esteem by the public because we do not seem to be able to get the jobs done.

I welcome the plan for the remuneration of councillors. We have all found ourselves short of money at the end of the year. I have, however, some reservation about this measure. Those councillors who, having given 20 or 25 years service, stand for election at the next local government elections and do not get elected should be rewarded for their service in some way.

I congratulate the Minister on this initiative and I hope he will give some consideration to my few reservations.

Mr. Caffrey

The most fundamental change in this package of local government reform is the retention of road tax fund revenue by local authorities. This development will be a major boost to many local authorities. However, I would like the Minister to address an anomaly in the measure which applies, in particular, to rural counties. I am speaking especially of Mayo where we have many semi-State companies, such as the ESB and Telecom Éireann as well as the Garda Síochána.

These bodies have their headquarters in Dublin where most of their vehicles are registered. Under the new system these agencies will be using Mayo roads but paying their tax to Dublin Corporation. I know that they do not need any money in Dublin because they are planning to give £114 million away. I hope the Minister will address this anomaly. In the past the tax on Garda vehicles would have been paid by one arm of the State to another but in the future this tax will be paid by the State to the local authority. I have not seen this issue raised and it is an important one, especially for rural counties.

Semi-State vehicles are taxed in a similar fashion in other counties but we in Mayo want to get every penny available from the road tax fund. There is an equalisation system but it works on a percentage basis and we would lose heavily if semi-State bodies continued to tax their vehicles at a central location like Dublin.

That is a major and fundamental local authority reform. We have been talking about such reform for ten years but much of what has happened has been cosmetic and we need more radical measures such as the Minister's proposed funding changes.

When I joined the local authority in 1985 I heard about powers for local councillors but we do not have much power even today. With the SPCs coming on stream there is a feeling that things are changing. In my county there are many misgivings about the new committees. In the experience of many councillors, including myself, there is a chasm between the thinking of community workers and of those elected to local authorities; they are two different cultures. We often try to bridge that chasm but are not always successful because many community workers — who will be the type of people to join SPCs — are not aware of the different functions of local authorities. They might not even understand the difference between reserve functions and executive powers. This will cause problems on the SPCs. From dealing with community workers down the years I know that this difference in thinking exists. Perhaps it will be overcome after a period but it could be a significant problem in the short term. The non-elected people who join SPCs may feel the influence they exert is not what they think it should be. The SPCs are a pioneering experiment in local democracy and like all such efforts they are fraught with dangers. We can only hope problems like those I have outlined will not come to pass.

Many Senators mentioned the continually increasing workload of county councillors which arises through the development and expansion of local authorities. This workload must be carried by people who do not receive anything like the correct remuneration. For instance, many members of county enterprise boards leave in the morning, drive 50 miles to a meeting, come home in the evening, all for no return. That is not local government, it is philanthropy. I ask the Minister to bring the county enterprise boards under the aegis of local authorities so that board members would get recognition for their work and input.

I welcome the other minor changes. For instance, local authorities will give up their antiquated accounting systems and adopt accrual accounting. At every annual estimates meeting I have a heated debate with our finance officer about local authority accounting systems which do not reflect the true position — they do not deal with creditors, debtors or assets. The Minister is to be commended for introducing accrual accounting.

Mr. Lydon

I welcome the Minister and congratulate him on his overall approach to local government. He has not forgotten what it is like to be a county councillor and the frustrations they experience. As a councillor myself I am only too aware how thankless it is to be a local authority member. We attend meetings night after night and mostly only get abuse in return — we certainly do not receive expenses. The abuse is mostly as a result of trying to reconcile different positions. However, we volunteer for it and most of those who volunteer for county council positions do a good job. I am glad the Minister is examining the area, including remuneration.

He has provided £125 million extra in funding compared to when he came into office, which is a substantial amount. I am glad this money will not be siphoned off for emergencies in other areas but will be left with local government —"ring fencing" is the current way to describe this process. Best of all, this money will increase in line with inflation.

Many Senators mentioned the strategic policy committees or SPCs, through which councillors will have a deep and meaningful involvement with different sectors of the community and a direct input into policy development. This is extremely important. I welcome the availability of the Minister in this regard and commend his willingness to consult. Councillors have been asked for their views on a wide range of issues and he has shown a capacity to listen which, to put it delicately, was not always there. I praise him for agreeing to meet members of local councils and municipal authorities through the General Council of County Councils, or GCCC, and the Local Authority Members' Association, or LAMA. Not so long ago Ministers would not even acknowledge LAMA's existence, let alone meet it. These are important bodies which represent the views of councillors and corporation members — literally hundreds of people — who do many civic duties for little reward. I commend the Minister for meeting them and listening to what they have to say.

In many ways people have a peculiar idea of councillors. They think we do nothing but go on junkets or such like. In the only junket of which I was part we spent an entire Saturday looking at waste management plants in London and Bath. I can think of better ways to spend my Saturdays than to be looking at rubbish. The local authority to which I belong, Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, has a huge waste management problem, as has the city of Dublin. It must be tackled by landfills, incineration or whatever. It is important that councillors look at these aspects. I recently heard Councillor Courtney of Kerry County Council defending the decision by his councillors to look at waste management strategies abroad. Trips like this are essential because we must see how these things work. People will have to be much more careful about how they dispose of their rubbish. For example, they will have to store it in different stockpiles and so on.

I am not keen on the Minister's undertaking to look at the possibility of expenses for councillors. We should have a salary which could, for example, be related to the number of meetings we attend. We spend a large amount of time at council meetings. It is very difficult to get business done. Senator Ormonde referred to the trials and tribulations involved in meeting the public night after night and explaining that money is not available for various projects. When many councillors resign or retire they have little recompense for their years of labour. I am, therefore, glad to see the Minister has moved in this direction in offering an incentive to some of the older councillors. I would not put myself in that bracket yet but perhaps the Minister will keep the package in place for when it comes to my turn.

I know most of the councillors around the country. They work very hard and are very committed. Yet, they receive little or nothing. The glory is negligible and the abuse is huge at times, especially with regard to some of the issues which we must tackle in Dublin.

We have shown the potential among ourselves to co-operate. Three of the four authorities in Dublin have co-operated on taxis, a very important issue which has been continually shelved. We also co-operate on many other issues. We have huge problems with halting sites, another area which the Minister is tackling, and with the provision of accommodation for travellers. It is an issue on which we must move.

I welcome the fact that the Minister is prepared to listen to councillors' concerns. I also welcome his commitment to improve the lot of councillors and his major commitment to restructure local government. It will be for the best. I congratulate him and wish him the best in this regard.

Mr. O'Dowd

The Minister is doing an excellent job. I know he pays special attention to his adjoining County Louth. We look forward to more funding.

I am an urban councillor since 1974 and a county councillor since 1979. Much of my time has been spent willingly and happily working for people in my community. However, local government is failing in many respects; often it is a political failure. For example, it is failing to look after disadvantaged people in large urban areas.

We must look again at the way we build and plan our housing estates and in the facilities we do or do not provide for them. This may not be a problem in rural areas. However, in urban areas — for example, Drogheda and Dundalk — successive Governments have failed to invest adequately in community facilities. There is no investment in community buildings, youth clubs and youth activities. Money is spent on priorities, such as housing. While that is to be welcomed, it leaves communities denuded of community facilities. In consequence, many of the housing estates in the larger urban areas are riddled with drugs, unemployment and crime. Communities must play a much more active and supportive role for people living there.

I welcome the initiative by the Department in looking after housing associations. However, it is not enough. Young people growing up in large areas of unemployment are without support apart from the local community facilities they build themselves. Not enough money is being invested in them and a blind eye is being turned to the problems in these communities. Our young people especially deserve much more than this. It is time to invest in the future of local government, to set a limit to the number of houses we will build in any one estate and to invest in community facilities.

Investment in the SPCs is part of the change. It represents positive progress because it involves the community again in the running of local government affairs. They have much potential.

However, local government has been by-passed by other bodies, perhaps because people consider it to be inefficient and to be failing to get necessary funding. In this regard, I am especially concerned about the development of our partnerships. They are excellent bodies and have millions of pounds to invest in many of our urban and rural areas. However, local government elected members are excluded from these activities. It is a disgrace that not one elected politician can sit on a partnership board and participate in the expenditure of money which deals specifically with their areas of responsibility. It is time to end this discrimination.

While we can become members of county enterprise boards we are debarred from becoming chairmen. It is a ridiculous slur that anybody should be singled out as being unworthy to hold the chairmanship of such a body. That must change.

The issue of landfill management and waste disposal is very costly. I spoke recently to a member of the German Parliament, the Bundestag. He told me that in his area of Munster people have reduced the cost of waste disposal by 75 per cent and that following the active pursuit of progressive policies in their communities and cities, they have a much smaller amount of waste to dispose of than we would have. It is not enough to have landfill sites. We need an active recycling policy and a much more aggressive policy to stop the waste of finite resources in our community.

The Minister has an important role in that regard, which I am sure he will address.

The EPA will increasingly impinge on our communities in defending the environment. This will be very expensive. Perhaps there is a further role for the EPA in holding seminars for elected members and helping them get to grips with the question of waste management.

The role and powers of elected members as opposed to the reserve functions of the manager and his officials is very important. There has been a sea change in the bureaucracy in the last 20 years which I welcome. It is much more of a partnership than it used to be but there is still not equity in that relationship. The Minister himself proposed the direct election of chairmen of borough councils. It is important that we redress the balance within decision making in local government to full-time public representatives who are paid for the work which they do. We have much to offer but as part-time councillors we cannot give the commitment it needs. Managers generally would welcome much more involvement in decision making. More power should be given to elected representatives within that area. Obviously there are matters which should remain functions of the manager but many decisions are taken without proper consultation because of time limits.

Health boards have been advised that they must establish finance committees. As elected members we need a more hands on approach to our roles in the county councils. We ought to have financial subcommittee meetings regularly to go through all of the issues which affect our community. All this would come together with paying councillors and public representatives for the job they have to do. I welcome the Minister's commitment to seriously consider the remuneration of public representatives so we have a much more inclusive local democracy.

I feel strongly about another area of local government which needs reform. In my own county, Louth, there are two large urban areas with an urban district council and a borough council. The power for decision making lies with the county council and yet the county council is not real to the people of Drogheda and Dundalk. I am elected to the county council, yet no member of my electorate lives in a rural area. It would be a good idea for reform of local government to install councils in areas of greatest population concentration. That would transcend county boundaries; but towns like Drogheda, a growth centre for east Meath, north County Dublin and south Louth, should have the decisions which affect those areas under the control of one council. It is ridiculous that the pollution of the River Boyne is a matter for Meath and Louth County Councils, and Drogheda Corporation, within their respective areas.

We need a more modern and dynamic form of local government for towns such as Drogheda and Dundalk. The balance of people and resources is moving into urban population areas and that is where decisions should be made and where the power base for administrative decisions must be.

Dr. Fitzpatrick

I welcome the Minister. Nobody can doubt his commitment to local government, its expansion and the expansion of the powers of the councillors. He himself has suffered in the ranks of county councillors over the years and watched how any good ideas or opinions which he had were deemed irrelevant because under the present statutes, the opinions, desires and needs of county managers are paramount, working with the civil servants in the Department of the Environment and Local Government.

At the end of the day the county councillors take the heat of battle. They are blamed for decisions over which they have no power. If only for equity, more power should go back to the county councils. Dublin City Council disposes of £250 million per year. This is a major enterprise by any standard. There is a lack of answerability to the people who elect us because we do not have the power to dispose of that money as we see fit. Before it arrives in the coffers of Dublin Corporation, 90 per cent is already spoken for due to commitments made in previous years to large scale building, drainage and water schemes, salaries and payment of county council officials. The county council receives 10 per cent of the budget.

In Dublin Corporation one source of pride is the parks and gardens. The way a good park can raise the morale of the people living in an area is incredible, yet we are working with less than £1 million per year. The way the park rangers and superintendents can make this money work for the betterment of the community is amazing.

Chairmen of county councils and lords mayor should have executive powers. They should be elected on a full-time basis, either from the body of the county councillors or directly. I have not decided which would be the correct method but this must happen because the nature of government at any level is becoming so demanding. It will require a greater input by the county councillors into the working of the councils. Part-time councillors will soon be on the way out; the nature of the job demands more and more of their time.

That raises issues such as the payment and terms of office. The Minister himself is thinking along these lines, how far we can go, how far political and financial reality will let us go, but these problems must be addressed.

We are undertaking a review of the functions of the health boards in this State. Having been employed by, and a member of, a health board, I feel the two areas in which the health boards work well are general hospital care and special hospital care. It falls down in community care.

Community care is treated like the other two areas in the health board, but the effect of a community welfare officer is felt on the ground and there is no overseeing of his actions by county councillors. There is no county councillor on the Eastern Health Board for the areas which I represent — north inner city, Cabra, Finglas — areas of high need and deprivation. Dublin 7 has the highest number of institutions in the city. The community welfare officer has great discretion under section 24 of the Social Welfare Act to dispense money for rent, clothing and housing allowances. In the Dublin area the Eastern Health Board is probably a bigger housing agency than the local authorities yet the actions of those involved is not overseen. I do not suggest their actions are malign. However, county councillors are in a better position to see the effects of the actions of people who are not accountable and over whom they have no control. The Minister may be able to raise this matter with the Government in the course of considerations of the interaction between local authorities and health boards, especially with regard to community care.

The Minister is committed to having strong active local authorities and to this end special policy committees are to be introduced. These committees will have some unelected members. I was against the idea initially because I felt that those not elected by direct franchise would not be accountable for their actions. There are unelected members of health boards and they do not have to take the heat, so to speak, for policy decisions they make. This issue has been brewing for some time. The local area committees will have a more important effect on the work of local authorities because they will allow local issues to be addressed locally. Councillors will then be able to deal with policy issues at their monthly meetings.

It is a disgrace that a public representative is statute barred from chairing an enterprise board. I praise the work of the enterprise boards. They are the Society of St. Vincent de Paul of lending institutions because they will lend money to those to whom financial institutions will not. I pay tribute to the excellent work of the enterprise board in my constituency which is creating jobs at a cost of about £2,000 per job which compares very favourably with IDA job costs.

I ask the Minister to address the accounting practices of county councils. Their practices remind me of the glass used in bathroom windows which lets in light but conceals what is going on. County councils are accountable for every penny spent but one cannot always see how the money is spent.

Mr. T. Hayes

I wish to share my time with Senator Jackman.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. T. Hayes

I thank the Minister for attending the debate. A debate on local authorities and the devolution of power cannot but be founded in the concept that the democratic role of elected members is of paramount importance. The public and members of local authorities feel that democratic power has been taken away from them over the past few years. The role of county managers and engineers seems to have become more important and what they say goes. That is not good for local democracy or the public who elect the local authority members. We must consider giving local authority members more say in local areas.

The introduction of SPCs is a step in the right direction. It is good to involve the public and to get advice and input in decision making on roads, housing or other issues. The committees will be of help to the elected members. However, I am concerned about the role of some bodies. In my county we are in the process of setting up the SPCs. Many bodies have applied which are not representative of the views of the public but they have vested interests and I am concerned that some of those bodies will be included in the process. That would not be good for local democracy and, I am sure, is not in tune with the Minister's ideas in setting up the SPCs. I would like the Minister to address this issue.

We must consider the future direction of local authorities. There is scope to devolve more power to them, in particular with regard to industrial promotions. There are many areas in which local councils should be involved which are handled at present by State agencies. The more rural counties in the west and south would benefit from the involvement of local authorities with industrial development and tourism. There is great potential for the devolution of power to local authorities.

Senators have spoken about the remuneration of councillors. We live in an age in which people are paid for what they do and councillors should not be an exception. A proper financial structure should be put in place. The supervisors of FÁS schemes have mobile 'phones. However, a councillor must use his or her own 'phone and their 'phone bills are very high. That is a cost to the individual. Councillors must be paid for their efforts.

Mrs. Jackman

Local government reform has occupied the minds of councillors for a considerable time. There were three or four years in succession in the recent past when papers on reform were presented at every conference. The only possible way to achieve meaningful reform is for the parties to plan reform collectively. The only way to devolve real power is by giving power to local authorities to raise finance, which might be considered in the context of the reform of the tax system. Part of the amendment relates to the practical commitment to the policy of equalisation.

The previous Minister for the Environment, Deputy Howlin, outlined the structures and accounting systems he envisaged in the document Better Local Government. There were then two items in equalisation: the rate support grant and motor tax receipts in lieu of the abolition of water and sewerage charges.

Under the Local Government Bill, 1998, new funding will replace arrangements introduced by the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act, 1997, and the proposed local government fund will come from two sources. I have a figure of £320 million, which appears to be the motor tax proceeds, and there will be a top-up from the Exchequer of £270 million in 1999. That will include lorries and drivers' licences fees, which is separate from private car tax.

The Exchequer grant will be increased in line with the consumer price index, giving a total of £590 million. This amendment refers to £125 million. Between the initial 1997 allocation and the expected 1998 outturn, how much of the £125 million is already in the system? I am a member of Limerick County Council, and £35 million was our estimate for 1997. Our outturn was £40 million. Is the £5 million difference part of the £125 million already in the system? Our road grants were thankfully higher than in 1997, and how much of those increases were already in the system? We got the grant increases after the initial allocation. I am a little concerned as to what the new system will replace. What is being abolished to be replaced by the motor tax/local government fund?

Will councils be given funding for new functions? How are strategic policy committees to be paid? Will it come out of the £125 million? In relation to the submission of the Local Authority Members Association, the Minister will be aware of the request for a £5,700 annual salary and the £570 pension fund for each year of service. Members have given 30 or 40 years' tremendous service and may want to stand for election again. Those who have given their time to local government should be recompensed and it would be unfair if they did not get that funding.

Regarding banding, Limerick County Council meets 80 or 90 times a year. We do not talk all the time because the 28 members have other matters to occupy their time. However, we need those meetings because local authorities have become extremely complex and it is essential to have an extra ten meetings in the 50 band. I am sure those in the 40 band would need the same.

Every local authority has a waste management problem and Limerick's Slieve Felim landfill site is particularly controversial. It is creating tremendous angst among people. The criteria usually used for landfills relate to how near the site is to a major centre of population, but the opposite is the case with Slieve Felim. It is far from population but is in an area of scenic beauty. It is proposed to locate the landfill at a height of 1,000 feet, which seems daft, and the roads can barely take the existing traffic. The Minister should get EU funds for reduction; I have returned from Germany, where they have had reduction with a population of 81 million. I cannot see why we cannot get people to use paper bags when at the supermarket. Composting, which I heard discussed on the radio today, should also be examined. Limerick County Council is anxious to hear more about the new energy source in the pipeline for us, and the council would like that waste energy project, which would be financed by the EU.

Mr. D. Kiely

I welcome the Minister and compliment him on his work. He has lived up to his word and visited almost every local authority, which no other Minister has done since I became a councillor. He listened attentively to councillors, but I have always found him to be a councillors' man. I am sure that every councillor, no matter what their political persuasion, would compliment him on his work. He has plans for improving the structures of local authorities, which is important to all members.

I have been involved with local authorities for many years, and chaired the General Council of County Councils for a period. I know the problems facing local authorities and the changes being made now will help with those problems. I thank the Minister for providing that motor tax collected by local authorities will be returned to them in order to be spent on the roads. However, a fund should be set up in the Department of the Environment and Local Goverment for storm damage to roads. Last winter storms did enormous damage to the roads in my part of Kerry and the amount of money sent from Dublin to repair the roads was inadequate.

People are critical of councillors and their work, but I have said on local radio that pensioners now get as much money as councillors. A councillor's allowances amount to approximately £10 a day. A person cannot be expected to do the work of a public servant for that amount and the Minister should examine this situation.

The strategic policy committees have been mentioned by speakers and I am delighted they have been set up. They will probably have internal elections, although this is not very clear. I hope democracy prevails. The county enterprise boards have also been mentioned and I compliment these bodies on their tremendous work, particularly in rural areas, in creating jobs. However, the Minister should examine the work of other organisations. The work done by the Leader programme and organisations such as FÁS should be brought under the umbrella of the county enterprise board, which would reduce the duplication of administrative work. The county enterprise board would be a far more credible organisation to implement the various programmes in the county. A great deal of money is being wasted on administration. Everyone knows what work needs to be done.

Applicants who first approach the county enterprise board are often told to approach another organisation, such as the Shannon development company. The entire process takes several months. It would be far better if industrialists or people who wish to set up a business could go to a one stop shop. Will the Minister examine the possibility of providing such a one stop facility in the local authority system?

I compliment the Minister on the amount of money he has allocated to local authorities this year for the road network, particularly the money provided for the restructuring of roads, which is the way forward. Most of the roads in my county will be restored as part of the five year plan we have put in place.

Mr. T. Hayes

Is there any other reason for that?

Mr. D. Kiely

We have plenty of reasons. However, in addition to restoration, the Minister will have to provide extra funding for the maintenance of roads which are not part of the five year plan.

I compliment the Minister on the provision of extra funding for roads, housing, sewage treatment plants, refuse services and landfill sites. If we are to have clear waters and a clean environment, funding must be provided for new sewage treatment plants and so on. I compliment the Minister on taking that course of action.

Will the Minister re-examine the retirement pension plan for councillors? Long serving councillors who lose their seats should be rewarded for their services.

Mr. Cosgrave

The interest shown by Members in this debate indicates our concern about how local government has been neglected over many years by successive Governments. I appeal to the Minister not to forget from where he came. I have seen solicitors and barristers appointed to the bench who suddenly forgot they had been appearing before the bench the week before. The Minister had a successful local authority career before he attained greater heights and I ask him not to forget the ordinary five-eighths of councillors.

Most Senators were councillors before they became Members of the Oireachtas. We know about the various tasks faced by councillors and the time constraints and lack of general facilities under which they work. We also know about getting calls at all hours of the night. Reference was made during the debate to executive decisions. It should be remembered that while the manager makes the executive decisions, the councillors receive the calls about them.

It is time to review all aspects of local authorities — how they can be made seem more relevant, how they can be better funded and how they can be made more amenable to the public. None of us could underestimate the work done by many councillors and the many helpful officials. We are often the intermediary between the public and the officials in trying to iron out problems. Most of these problems are non political and concern matters such as traffic calming measures, drainage, housing problems, etc. Such problems do not change, regardless of who is in Government or which side has the majority on the council, and we try to sort them out on a council or ward basis, which is how it should be.

I ask the Minister to give realistic recognition to the role of councillors in the future. Will he clarify the position in regard to certain murmurings about the dual mandate for councillors and Deputies or Senators? In an ideal world we could say members have enough do to in trying to serve one body. For example, all parties thought it was expedient to run Deputies for European Parliament seats but such Members spent most of their time in Europe and very little time in the Dáil. The Minister should tread cautiously in regard to any mooted changes because Deputies and Senators are viewed differently. Also, when Deputies are appointed as Ministers they must resign from their local authority seat but if they lose their Dáil seat they must then start again in the local authority. It is important to address these questions. If the Minister announces draconian measures overnight he will face a great deal of opposition — and not just from the Opposition.

Councillors should receive proper remuneration and long service should be recognised. Councillors with, for example, 18 years service should receive the same recognition, regardless of whether they retired or lost their seat. There should also be some weighting between 18 years and 36 years service. I ask the Minister to respond positively to these points.

Minister for the Environment and Local Government (Mr. Dempsey)

I apologise to Senators for not being able to attend this debate last week as I was away. I was disappointed when I saw the wording of the motion but I am more heartened by the comments today and the reports of the comments made last week, even by those from the party which tabled the motion. Most Senators stated that the reason for the motion was to arrange a debate on local government reform and they have succeeded in doing so. However, if they had asked me they would not have needed to table a negative motion as I would have been more than happy to come into the House to discuss this issue. I issued an invitation to the joint committee to discuss this matter and to take into account and bring forward whatever ideas it had on any policy change I wished to make. I accept the reasoning for the motion and I welcome this debate.

Since taking office I have gone out of my way to consult and to listen to the views of Members of both Houses, local authority members and others and I will continue to do so even after the major new Bill on local government reform is introduced before the end of the year. I have heard and taken note of a variety of different issues mentioned, many of which will or are already covered in the Bill. I reiterate that I am not one who does not consult. My door is open and if the House wishes to put forward ideas and proposals on local government reform I will listen to those views.

There has been an enormous amount of consultation on local government reform over the past 20 years. As experienced members of local authorities, general councils, LAMA, etc., Senators would be the first to admit that there are stacks of paper resulting from consultations over the past 20 years. We have had conferences, White Papers, Green Papers, excellent papers drafted by the representative organisations, expert reports and so on. We have consulted to death on this issue. While I have no difficulty with ongoing consultation, I am not going to allow that to become an excuse for doing nothing. That is why I am pressing ahead with local government reform, talking to people and asking for views.

Last week, the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, outlined the different measures I have taken since coming into office to try to ensure that as many people as possible were listened to. If Senators or councillors have good ideas or views they should bring them forward. They should not wait until the Bill is published or passed; they should bring them forward now and I will take them into consideration and try, as far as possible, to put them in place.

I have a strong belief in local government and the necessity to reform the system. My views and some of the changes I wish to introduce will not find favour with all Members or councillors but that is democracy. We are all entitled to different views and I am open to changing my mind on different aspects of my proposals. In fairness to myself and the local government system we need the ideas to be brought forward and not to wait until after the Bill is passed.

The local government fund was referred to by a number of Senators. Despite my best efforts I still seem to be failing in communication in this area. The local government fund will comprise motor tax receipts and £270 million Exchequer funding from 1 January. Senator Caffrey raised the issue of semi-State companies being based and taxing their cars in Dublin. It makes no difference where a car is taxed. The only issue for the local government fund is the total tax take. That total figure goes into the fund to be distributed to the local authorities. I wish to explain what will happen then. The previous Government proposed that 85 per cent of the tax on cars raised in a local authority area would remain with that authority and that the remainder would go into the central fund. The fund is a local government fund. It cannot be used on anything other than the local government system. It is not a question of the money going into the Exchequer and local government having to go cap in hand. The money will be there to be spent by local government.

There was no formula in place for distributing the fund. A council was to be established to advise and distribute the money. I do not mind advice but I am reluctant to set up any more quangos and the Bill reflects this. In the initial stages a quango will not decide what local authorities will receive. What is more important is how the money is distributed. It will be distributed on the basis of needs and resources. Senators from Galway particularly will be aware that we are trying to devise a needs and resources study. The corporation, county council and urban councils in Galway, with assistance from the Department, are trying to create a framework and build a model by which we can decide the needs and resources which must be made available for local authorities generally. It will be an objective measurement. It will not be a question of the most money going to wherever the Minister happens to be. There will be a needs and resources study for each local authority and, based on the model being developed, that is how the money will be distributed. It is based on equalisation, taking into account the individual circumstances of each local authority. That is a fair way. There is no magic formula which can be devised which will give an easy way out. It must be based on something concrete and the areas of needs and resources have been chosen.

As regards queries about the fund, I have always said that there will be £125 million over and above what was available to local government when I came into office. Some £43 million of that is built into the 1998 allocation, with £17 million coming from motor tax and £26 million from non-national roads. Next year there will be just under £80 million over and above the 1998 figure. That is a sizeable but necessary figure and it is to be hoped it will be used well by local authorities.

It is important the local authority system gives value for money and we are putting in place audit systems to ensure that. We are trying to ensure the taxpayer who funds local government receives value for money. If local authorities give excellent value for money, instead of earmarking funds, more funding will go to them by way of block grant so that they can decide how to spend it. If there is a priority of roads or housing in any specific year, the locally elected councillors will be able to allocate money to it. That block grant will go to the efficient and effective councils whereas those which do not meet standards of efficiency and effectiveness and do not give value for money will continue to receive earmarked funds. I would like to be in a position at the end of my term of office where block grants will be given to every local authority. While that is Utopian from what I know of the local government system currently, it will nonetheless happen in most cases within the decade because the local authority system is good and efficient and should be able to deliver value for money.

I wish to deal with points raised today and last week. The system of local government which I hope to have in place next year will be a new one and people will have the opportunity to opt into it or to finish their term of service with the local authority and to have it recognised in the form of a gratuity. I intend to introduce that system by way of amendment to the Local Government Funding Bill. I am aware of the depth of feeling of some people about the gratuity, but it will be paid to people retiring from local government service in the manner I have explained and that is the only basis on which it will be paid. If councillors feel strongly about this, I say to them that it will be paid on that basis or it will not be paid at all. I do not want councillors under any illusions about that. That is one decision which is final.

Remuneration has been mentioned and it is an issue dear to Senators' hearts, because councillors are their electorate and they always represent their electorate well. When I started out in politics as a local councillor, I viewed it as an honour to be elected to a local authority and regarded that as sufficient recompense, although the expenses were useful in meeting bills. While I would like to believe that idea of service still exists, I also recognise that there are many demands on people's time and many pressures on them and that that concept no longer exists. I hope to bring proposals to Government to recognise that fact and to give some basic remuneration to councillors in addition to the existing expenses regime.

A number of Senators referred to SPCs, development bodies, local development and local government. Membership of SPCs is a matter for elected council members. They must decide whether a person is representative of a sector, such as the environment, the socially excluded or the disabled. It is not a matter for the Minister. Local public representatives should take account of the responsibilities they are given and make choices because some of those will not be easy to make. Nonetheless, they must make them.

As regards local development and local government, part of my responsibility as Minister for the Environment and Local Government is to integrate the two systems. It is not in the interests of democracy or accountability that there be two parallel systems, one which is elected and the other participatory. However, councillors have much to learn from participatory democracy in the form of local development bodies. That approach has to be incorporated into the new integrated system and the people mentioned by Senators, such as the socially excluded and the disabled, must be made to feel part of the new local government system and must be catered for in the manner in which they are currently being catered for.

Local development must accept accountability for the taxpayers' money it spends. The local government is ready, willing and able, as judged by what I have heard about the SPCs and the local government system getting people involved. The local government system will have no problem adapting to this and I would like to see a little more willingness on the part of the local development organisations in giving this a try because I have not seen that so far, but I hope to.

Some Members spoke about funding. Senator Burke looked for more power to raise finances locally and I would like to hear other councillors views on that. We had a system of financing local authorities locally, but it was abolished. Following consultation locally, it is my intention, as it was that of the previous Government, that local authorities will have the power to set up a community development fund. In the context of the review of the planning laws, I intend to try to build into the system a provision so that builders and others making a considerable amount of money will contribute to a community fund to allow for the building of community facilities in particular areas. I hope I will get the support of the House in that regard.

Levies on takeaways were mentioned. Local authorities can levy takeaways under the Litter Pollution Act and should use that power. One of the greatest problems we have is litter. As a result of an amendment we tabled to the Act when it passed through the House under the previous Minister, the fines imposed on people for littering are payable to the local authority. There is no excuse for local authorities not to try to enforce those laws and impose fines.

I would look more favourably on cries from the heart for funding from local authorities if I thought they were taking their business seriously. Some local authorities and corporations do not charge for refuse collection at a time when the cost of providing these facilities is going through the roof. It will bankrupt some local authorities if they do not do something about this matter. The EU is taking a dim view of the fact we do not charge for water and we are fighting the case with it. It has made the case that if we do not charge for water, we do not need money to provide the infrastructure to provide it. I would say the same to local authorities which need money but which do not charge for a service like refuse collection even as purely an environmental tax to try to get people to reduce the amount of waste they generate. I would not be amenable to increasing the amounts of money made available to such local authorities.

I am sorry I do not have more time but perhaps we might repeat this exercise when I have more time because local government reform and a renewed local government system is dear to my heart. It is a matter of great interest to Members of this Houses, as judged by the number who spoke, and on which we could have a long session. I look forward to returning to the House with the Local Government Funding Bill shortly when I might have the opportunity to address some of the others issues raised. I thank Members for their contributions to the debate.

Mr. Cassidy

I would like to ask for an additional 15 minutes to allow Members offering to speak and Senator Coogan to conclude.

Mr. Mooney

May I share my time with Senator Cassidy?

An Cathaoirleach

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Mooney

The Minister has presented a challenge to members of local authorities. Most Members are members of local authorities and would understand the language the Minister chose to use. I could not help but reflect on the fact that 100 years ago, when debates were taking place on the creation of local government, which was at that time a reforming measure taking over from the boards of guardians and the poor law, a challenge was almost certainly presented and there must have been a mission statement of the role and function of local authorities. The Minister is evolving and when the legislation is presented we will have a definitive mission statement on the future role of local authorities. What he has outlined so far would indicate that we are about to embark on a new concept of local government, which is to be welcomed by all of us and those in local government, notwithstanding the fact there will be niggling irritations along the way.

Unquestionably, some councillors are concerned about the gratuity issue. On the face of it, it looks like a losing battle as far as the Minister is concerned. However, one of the strongest arguments put to me about the Minister's proposals was that Members of the Dáil and Seanad who lose their seats are entitled to a gratuity or severance pay and why should local authority members not be treated in the same fashion.

Mr. Dempsey

We get paid.

Mr. Mooney

I was not going to answer my question——

Mr. Coogan

Please do.

Mr. Mooney

——but was going to say that on the face of it, it seems we are entering into a new era. Will the Minister consider a training regime — for example, seminars, etc. — for councillors who will assume new broad wide-ranging powers which they have not traditionally had? Will members of local authorities be given the technological facilities we, as Members of this House, have recently acquired? We are living in a technological age, an age of IT. I understand some local authorities are receiving this technology.

Does the Minister agree the role and status of local authorities has diminished to such an extent in the public mind, because of the abolition of rates and the consequence of that coupled with the rise in the participatory development organisation to which the Minister accurately referred, that the education system at local level needs to be appraised of the future role of local authorities? This parallel development is to come to an end and there will be an intregrationalist approach, which all of us welcome. Nothing has been more frustrating for councillors over the past number of years than to watch what has been going on in the participatory environment. This is not a criticism in that we all welcome what has been going on there. In some cases it has been a joy to watch communities, which have been given a hand up rather than a hand out, come together.

During my year as chairman of Leitrim County Council, the first occasion I was invited to attend a function in an official capacity was the opening of a marina in Ballinamore, County Leitrim. The three people who were acknowledged and called upon to speak were the representatives of the funding agencies, the area partnership, the Leader programme and the International Fund for Ireland. The local authority was not one of the agencies. This must end. Local authorities must become more involved. The Minister has presented a challenge and I hope councillors will accept it. I welcome the Minister's thinking in this area. As he said, we will return to this topic and I look forward to that debate.

Mr. Cassidy

I support the calls made during the debate. I have known the Minister for many years and I say without fear of contradiction that he will be a Minister of action. No other Minister in the portfolio has been better briefed, particularly given his experience as secretary of LAMA. He worked hard during his ten years with LAMA and I have every confidence in his intended actions. The right actions may not have been taken at the start but, as the Minister said, he is prepared to listen to views and to change or adjust the proposals. What more could the House want?

The Minister's action with regard to the remuneration of members of local authorities should be serious. They should be given something decent because councillors work in a voluntary capacity. Every Monday I and my colleagues on Westmeath County Council and other local authorities give up our time. We must find somebody to replace us in the workplace and people lose a day's wages if they work in industry. If they are farmers, they must find people to do their work on that day. People give their time and expertise for free. The least they should receive is an acknowledgement in terms of money to pay the people who must replace them in the workplace one day a week. The calibre of local authority members is high and the Minister is young, enthusiastic and energetic. The economic climate is good and buoyant and the public expects efficiency. They want their requests met immediately but this cannot be done unless the right people are in power.

Local authority members are the salt of the earth. They are involved in voluntary organisations throughout the country. These people probably devote 40 hours of their time a week to various organisations in addition to their political work. Local authority members are at ground level and they bring the message back to the Government. They represent the poorest and underprivileged in society. In my role in public life I get the most satisfaction from helping such people. Individuals who are well off can employ a team or firm to represent them and get whatever they consider they are due. However, local authority members get most satisfaction representing people in underprivileged communities.

I hope local authority members will respond positively to the Minister's proposals. These people have served for many years for free and I hope they will get a decent offer from the Minister to ensure they can enjoy their retirement with their next of kin. They should be able to enjoy the last years of their lives without having to ask people to help them out by organising a fund raising function for them. I look forward to the introduction of the Bill.

Mr. Coogan

I also welcome the Minister to the House. I recognise he is willing to consult. I attended a conference recently where he spent two hours replying to questions. He only held back in a number of small areas and these are the areas I wish to mention.

I said previously that the motion was not a knee-jerk reaction or an attempt to go against the Government. There is a two fold reason behind it. The Minister spotted the first which relates to the need for a debate on local government. Senators are the main representatives of local authority members and we considered it correct that such a debate should be held. I admit the motion was introduced through the back door, but the label on it was "consultation". I have talked to many members of local authorities and they considered certain areas were being consulted while others were being ignored. They said it was a case of allowing them to do the donkey work but they would be excluded from the consultations on how payments would be made.

The motion condemns the Government for its failure to adequately consult all interested parties in relation to funding. Local authority members are familiar with the motor taxation aspects but they were not aware of what was happening to the equalisation fund. The Minister may say I should know what is happening in Galway Corporation and Galway County Council because they are running the pilot scheme. However, no member of the corporation or county council is aware of what is happening to the fund. There is no consultation at that level and members feel there is no consultation whatsoever about the fund. They do not want a quango but they want a representative member of the General Council of County Councils, LAMA or AMAI to be part of a consultative body to ensure there is equity. I do not suggest the Minister will not ensure there is equity but such a body would resolve the issue. Local authority members would know that they have a part to play and they could not complain about the final decision. They could not say that various things were not done or that they should receive more because they would be tied into the process.

The SPCs are a novel and new development but they are frightening to many councillors. They did not know what would happen to them. They felt excluded that the SPCs included radical elements and that single issue candidates could take their seats. As the Minister is aware, there is always a resistance to change. Nevertheless, the representative bodies met the Minister and departmental officials. They also met representatives of the previous Administration and discussed the matter. They then explained what was happening to their members and, in the main, they have secured agreement on the SPCs. They are almost in operation in many councils, including my own.

Nowadays council members are professional people. This is reflected in the fact that the Minister is considering giving a gratuity to council members in the future. However, if they have that standing, why are they excluded from the debate on the financial aspects? The Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, recently launched a new housing unit and he welcomed the fact that the unit will bring together representatives of the main interests in social housing working together in common cause. He said this partnership approach is the way forward in social housing. Managers and voluntary groups are represented but local authority members are excluded. If one believes local authority members are professionals, they are entitled to be part of such representative bodies and to discuss issues which will affect them in the future.

An element of the motion was introduced through the back door to start the debate on changes to local democracy. The Minister said there is a democratic deficit and that he is considering the direct election of mayors. This has opened a can of worms and 102 representatives debated the issue at a meeting of the General Council of County Councils in Ennis last week. There was a degree of resistance to the idea because there is a question about the purpose of a directly elected mayor or chairperson. What standing will he or she have vis-a-vis the manager? Will he or she dictate to the manager or vice versa? Will the mayor have control over finances? How will he or she relate to the SPCs and elected members? There are many questions to be answered and I want clarification on the control aspects. Will it be similar to the French or American systems?

The question must be asked whether a system is to be adopted where a mayor is elected, is in charge of finance and every other aspect of local government but is also in charge of raising finance for the local authority. Local authorities are capped and the forthcoming Bill includes a capping of commercial rates. That is worthy of debate. There are many issues and the Minister will return to debate them, but it was felt it was critical to hold a debate before the Bill was introduced in case any modifications or insights could be provided by Members.

I am delighted the Minister is trying to tie local development systems back into local authorities because they were outside the realm of democracy. We did not know what they were doing as they dispernsed funds like Santa Claus. However, the resistance to this came from the Department of Finance, not the Minister's Department. I turn now to gratuities for members. If individuals have committed themselves to 30 years in local government, they should be given a commensurate gratuity irrespective of failure to be elected. It is wrong, inequitable and unfair to do otherwise. If anybody has given a commitment over many years to local government, he or she should receive a gratuity commensurate with that commitment. I hope the Minister takes that into account and I have no doubt he will do his best for local authority members through whatever new format he introduces. However, he must recognise facilities must be provided for local authority members, and funding commensurate with the work they carry out should be provided.

Amendment put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 25; Níl, 16.

Tá

• Bohan, Eddie.
• Bonner, Enda.
• Callanan, Peter.
• Cassidy, Donie.
• Chambers, Frank.
• Cox, Margaret.
• Finneran, Michael.
• Fitzgerald, Liam.
• Fitzgerald, Tom.
• Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
• Gibbons, Jim.
• Glynn, Camillus.
• Keogh, Helen.
• Kett, Tony.
• Kiely, Dan.
• Kiely, Rory.
• Lanigan, Mick.
• Leonard, Ann.
• Lydon, Don.
• McGowan, Patrick.
• Mooney, Paschal.
• Moylan, Pat.
• O'Brien, Francis.
• Ormonde, Ann.
• Walsh, Jim.

Níl

• Burke, Paddy.
• Caffrey, Ernie.
• Coghlan, Paul.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Cosgrave, Liam T.
• Cregan, Denis (Dino).
• Doyle, Avril.
• Doyle, Joe.
• Gallagher, Pat.
• Hayes, Tom.
• Jackman, Mary.
• Manning, Maurice.
• McDonagh, Jarlath.
• O'Dowd, Fergus.
• O'Toole, Joe.
• Ridge, Thére se.

Tellers: Tá, Senators T. Fitzgerald and Keogh; Níl, Senators Burke and Ridge.

Amendment declared carried.

Motion, as amended, put and declared carried.

The Seanad adjourned at 8.35 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 7 May 1998.