On the matter of the Government Order not to hold local elections on the due date in 1984——
Local Elections (Specification of Local Election Year) Order, 1984: Motion (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That Dáil Éireann confirms the following Order:
Local Elections (Specification of Local Election Year) Order, 1984,
a copy of which Order was laid before Dáil Éireann on the 13th day of January, 1984.
—(Minister for the Environment.)
(Interruptions.)
Order.
I am reminded of a statement of our illustrious founder when he was interrupted — for a different reason of course. My underlying opposition to this order being made is what I consider to be the cowardice of the Government in running away from these elections. On a number of occasions during the debate up to now it has been said, with some justification, that local elections have been adjourned on previous occasions. I do not disagree with that, but I contend that each and every time those elections were adjourned or postponed for a year or so it was for very good and valid reasons. There is no valid reason why the local elections would not be held in 1984 but that the Government are reluctant to face the electorate in these elections. They are afraid of the challenge. Previous instances and times of postponing elections and so forth have been mentioned. On the day this order came in the Government voted down our request for the Laois-Offaly by-election.
It is right to remind some people of the challenge that we in Fianna Fáil took up in 1972 when the mid-Cork by-election was in the offing. Because the combined Coalition parties were 6,000 votes ahead of us in that constituency they were anxious to have the by-election. Members will remember that our leader at that time, Deputy Jack Lynch, when asked about a certain item on the agenda replied, "What about it? Will we have it?" We took up the challenge and held that by-election and the result is part of history, that Deputy Gene Fitzgerald was elected then, in spite of the 6,000-vote head start of the Coalition parties.
Why do the Government not take up our party's challenge now to hold the by-election? Why can they not accept the challenge as we did in 1972? Everybody knows it is because the abhorrence of the general public for the performance of this Government would surely be manifested in the vote. The people of the constituency are anxious for this opportunity. Unemployment now at 216,000 is almost unprecedented in our history. When Fine Gael and Labour came together to form a Government unemployment was at 170,000. This conglomeration coming together made marvellous promises.
We were told of decisive action that would be taken in this matter of job creation and rising unemployment. No action has been taken by the Government in their 15 months in office to eradicate the growing unemployment trends. One could ask the reason why this has not happened. I contend that it is because of the diametrically opposite policies being pursued, as is customary with a Coalition Government, of Fine Gael and Labour and people are saying that they have tried four times but this is surely the straw which broke the camel's back. Like the words of the song, never no more, is the attitude of the people, if they are given the opportunity. The Coalition Government do not formulate policies but conduct a public relations exercise about policies. They are never prepared to come before the public and state their objectives openly and honestly. They preached those at great length during the election campaign. Subsequently, they made promises to one another and got together to form a Government. They have let the country down simply to be in Government. The reluctance to hold the local elections is because of the effect it would have on the Coalition Government if they were held. The people would show their abhorrence of the lack of performance of the Government.
It is an established fact that the central issue of our economic and social lives is the frightening level of unemployment and the fact that it continues to rise and is now at the extraordinary figure of almost 216,000. The full extent of the economic and social damage that this massive unemployment figure causes cannot be underestimated. It has brought hardship and frustration and is likely to bring massive unrest in the community unless the Government wake up to the fact and do something about it. It destroys human dignity and takes away from our massive young population their hopes and ambitions for the future. Despite this, the Government are prepared to slide along leaving the ship of State drifting rudderless without a captain. It is time the Government woke up to the situation.
It is beyond comprehension why action is not being taken by the Government in relation to capital investment in a programme to help the construction industry. The Minister's budget speech took up 64 pages much of which was undiluted water. One of the most important basic industries, agriculture, got only two paragraphs in his speech. The enormous uncertainty of the stalled negotiations in Brussels and elsewhere and the lack of Government support for agriculture is doing great harm to this industry. The people involved in agriculture and its ancillary industries would like to show their disapproval of the Government. The way to do that is through the local elections. The Government's policy seems to be to let our farmers fend for themselves. They are ignoring the role which our natural resource can play in securing economic growth and reducing unemployment. A new concept is needed for economic management, to give thrust and make clear decisions on where we wish to go and mobilise all our resources. We need good political leadership and economic management to do that but the Government have not got either of those things.
During the course of the debate a Member on the Government side asked why should we vote for these fellows? That is a very good question. People have been asking that question and, if they were given the opportunity, they would not vote for the people in Government. They are being denied this opportunity by this order which we are now debating. Reference was made disparagingly that only one party at the 1979 local and general elections prevented their members from contesting the European and local elections. People making statements like that should check the record and they will find that the same rule applied to Fianna Fáil members as well as to Fine Gael members. Our candidates were not allowed to contest the local elections and the European elections on the same day. I am merely stating that for the accuracy of the record lest it be misconstrued that we were adopting another attitude on that matter. It was sad to have reflective comments made on the members of sub-committees of county councils during this debate.
It was clear from the 1983 Act, which empowered county managers to levy charges on council services, that the Government intended that their cutback in financial support for local authorities would be made up by dramatic increases in local service charges without any consequent easing of the direct and indirect taxation already imposed by the Exchequer. We did not support the 1983 Act because it replaced rates with service charges rather than supplementing the existing sources of local authority revenue. It has been stated erroneously on a number of occasions that in The Way Forward we advocated the introduction of these charges. In relation to charges it states:
Investment in sanitary services is designed to provide a level of water and sewerage services adequate for industrial, agricultural and commercial growth and housing development. The main emphasis over the Plan period will be on major schemes which convey the largest national benefit in terms of improved infrastructure and serviced land. In view of the increased investment in sanitary services, it will be necessary to consider imposing realistic charges both on individual users of sanitary services and developers so as to recoup part of the cost. This matter will be examined in the context of legislation to empower local authorities to charge for services generally.
There are many homes without water supplies or sanitary services. It is reasonable to expect that in order to provide such people with these services a development charge should be levied. Water and sanitary facilities are basic necessities. From 1977 Fianna Fáil Governments gave 100 per cent grants in lieu of rates. The first chopping of that was done under the Coalition Government's Estimates which included a figure of £65 million to be raised by local authorities to make up for the reduction from 100 per cent grants to 91 per cent grants.
A full dress debate on either Government or Opposition policy or performance is not in order. Passing references are in order but an in-depth discussion on them would widen the debate too much.
I respect the Chair's observations and I will do my best to comply with the direction. I raise these matters because they all hinge on the fact that the local elections are not being held. We know from the attitude of the people during the Dublin Central by-election who they hold responsible for the charges. More importantly, they now realise — the more often we tell them the better — that the reason for the charges was not to extend services to people who did not have them but to make up the shortfall as a result of the Coalition Government's cutback from the 100 per cent grant in lieu of rates. This is another reason why the Government are unwilling to face the electorate. Hence we have this order before the House.
I condemn the pious resolutions about reform. This has been given as the reason why the local elections are being put off but if the proposed reform bears any relation to the 1983 Act introduced by the Government then we had better warn the people, particularly local authority councillors. The 1983 Act gave the manager power to bring in service charges rather than giving the power to the local councillors. We were very concerned about this attack on local democracy. We must highlight the detrimental affect of the Act so that the public can understand the damage the Coalition policies are doing in this area. That is why I would be interested in the proposals the Government bring in in their so-called reform of local government. If what they brought in is an indication of what we might expect, the local elections might not be held for another few years. If they have any ideas about that, they had better think again because they have done enough damage. If they want suggestions about reforming the structure of local authorities, members of local authorities could give them some.
The Minister of State is still a member of a local authority and must be aware of the position of elected members. The attempt to put off the local elections is regrettable and unacceptable. The Government are very reluctant to hold them. Nobody would blame them for doing another U-turn. They have done a few already so one more will not make any difference. I urge them to reconsider this matter and hold the elections. We never stood back from a challenge.
Only eight times.
We are challenging the Government to go out and face the electorate at the local elections. The Coalition have been in Government for 15 months and have not done anything except damage the economy. They have not put forward any policies or proposals which might help to generate employment. The construction industry is at its lowest ebb since the Coalition Government dragged it down in the fifties. Agriculture has been treated with contempt and the unemployment figures have risen to the totally unacceptable level of almost 216,000. There is a lack of creative incentive to fund our social services such as health and education. Why are all these services being left short of money? Because we have a Government that has failed to generate economic drive, wealth and well-being. In the words of one of their former members, they are a thundering disgrace and it is time they faced the electorate in local elections which would be a barometer of their popularity. We are appealing to the Government to do something instead of letting the country drift aimlessly.
In noting the decision of the Government to postpone local elections to allow thorough examination of the structure and financing of the local government system to be completed, we have to ask if local government is facing difficulties at present and if we have problems in relation to its structure? The undeniable answer is that we do, and the sooner the problem is tackled the better.
Many councillors are members of corporations, county councils or urban councils. Some are Members of this House, although the majority are not, and year in year out they face many problems. They give great attention to their own communities and they work long hours for very little reward. They are subjected to abuse and taunts that they are not doing their job properly when in many instances their hands are tied by central government or by officials in various Departments or local authorities. It is quite clear that changes are needed.
In relation to the postponement of the elections it is clear that changes are long overdue. White Papers have been published in the past but nothing has been done about them. Postponing the local elections for a year is not going to prevent the people from being given the opportunity to pass an interim judgment because they will be given that opportunity in the Euro elections. Perhaps there will also be by-elections which will give people a further opportunity to express their opinions. Perhaps the results will be unfavourable to the Government as has happened in the past, but at least they are facing up to their responsibilities. More and more people recognise that they are doing a good job in difficult times. Mistakes have been made, but what Government have not made mistakes? After the debacle of the various deals in the previous administration, at least this Government are dedicated to their task and and prepared to face up to their responsibilities. They will govern until 1987 and will then be prepared to stand on their record. It will be up to the public at that stage to give them a further mandate if they so desire.
It is important to have a stable Government over the next few years. There are many problems to be faced and postponement for one year for very necessary reform is to be commended and indeed urged. There are many problems facing local government in relation to its structuring and financing. It is only by a combination of effort all round in trying to solve these problems that we will have any success. The Minister in his speech last week indicated that the review was under way and that he was meeting various bodies. I do not know what stage the review is at now, but perhaps he will tell us that later and perhaps outline the Government's proposals in relation to reform. I hope we will be able to help him in this regard.
Domestic rates were abolished pursuant to the 1977 Fianna Fáil manifesto. The public accepted it, as rates were an inequitable burden. However, did anybody ensure at that time that there would be enough money to make up the deficit to local authorities? Where was the extra money going to come from? It is interesting to go back to——
I hope the Deputy will not go back too far or in too much depth.
I just want to refer briefly to the need for reform. The fact that local authorities are experiencing financial difficulties goes back to the time when rates, which were the main source of income, were done away with.
I wish to refer to the speech of the Minister for Finance, then Deputy Ryan, in 1977 in relation to rates relief. He stated:
The Government have been giving sympathetic consideration to the problem of rates on domestic property. The rates bill is a significant part of the average family budget and indeed there have been demands from some quarters for their complete abolition. Complete abolition would cost over £60 million in 1977.
He went on to list the increases in various forms of taxation which would be necessary to finance this measure. The White Paper published by Fianna Fáil stated that rates could not be replaced without increasing income tax by 14 pence and they did not accept the idea of imposing new taxes to replace rates. That was Fianna Fáil policy prior to 1973 but in 1977 they abolished rates overnight.
The Chair must be consistent. I cannot allow a full dress debate on the removal of rates.
There is a need for reform in relation to structure and also in relation to finance and this postponement is in order to allow the reform to be effected. The then Minister for Finance adopted a phased approach and there was a partial reduction in rates. Had that approach been continued local authorities would not be facing the financial problems which necessitate reforms.
The local authorities in Dublin city and county and the Borough of Dún Laoghaire are facing many problems and the necessary finance must be provided. None of us would want to see councillors dictated to by ministerial order and deprived of their independence. It is clear that the Exchequer cannot bear the whole burden of financing local authorities. Grants and subventions from central funds have not been keeping pace with inflation. People will have to pay a certain amount towards services, and water charges have already been introduced. They are paying so much already in personal taxation that other ideas must also be considered.
There have been various suggestions relating to local taxes and lotteries. While a lottery might be successful in an urban area such as Dublin, Cork or Galway it is doubtful whether a lottery in a rural area would cover even administrative costs. The Minister might say what possibilities are being considered by the Government. In some American states taxes are raised on certain items and these taxes are retained in the local areas. Here taxes such as road tax and property tax go into central funds and are not available locally.
I hope that is not Government thinking.
We must look at the whole question of raising finance for local authorities, whether by direct or indirect taxation, by local charges or by lotteries. In 1977 rates were abolished without any clear thought as to how finance for local authorities would be forthcoming.
Many areas around Dublin, such as Tallaght and Finglas, have grown from being villages some years ago into minitowns. It is unreasonable to expect councillors to represent many thousands of people and look after all the problems of these areas. There must be a restructuring of the Dublin county area. Thought must also be given to the provision of facilities such as shopping centres and leisure centres and houses should not be built where these facilities do not exist.
There is also the problem of itinerants in Dublin city and county. We must first identify what we mean by itinerants. There was the old type of itinerant who generally got around and was never too well off but there is now the new higher class breed of itinerant who to a certain extent lives outside the law, does a tremendous amount of dealing and does not want to settle down because it would not suit his lifestyle. The bulk of them probably do not pay tax of any sort. Many people want to do something about the problem but nobody wants to tackle it firmly. It must be tackled at ministerial and regional levels. Itinerants are hopping around south county Dublin from one estate to another and being encouraged in certain cases, including one in my own constituency where there are dubious circumstances as to how they arrived on an open space.
I should not like the Deputy to tease out the whole itinerant problem. A passing reference is acceptable.
This is a matter which must be part of local government reform. I would hope that my comments would be considered by the Minister.
There are other problems relating to the water supply. Many areas have very low water pressure because of new developments which have taken place. Existing reservoirs have been expected to cope with an expanded network and problems have resulted in many areas. All these matters must be thought out in advance of developments taking place. Another matter which has to be looked at is the problem about finishing estates and the burden this creates for local authorities. Various fly-by-night builders——
The various headings of the Local Government Estimate are not in order for discussion in detail.
I hope I can make a passing reference to local government structures and problems. A reason given for this postponement is to allow a thorough reorganisation of the financing of the local government system.
The Chair must be consistent. I understand that the Local Government Estimate will be taken tomorrow. Many of the matters which Deputy Cosgrave is worried about can be dealt with then.
I hope that the local government reforms to which I have referred will be considered by the Minister. He indicated that a review was under way. I do not know how far it has gone. This review is long overdue. I hope the Minister will make as many proposals as possible, and that they can be implemented when councillors are seeking reelection in approximately 16 months. It is important that we do not abdicate our responsiblity. Policies must be adequately thought out. There are many problems to be faced. Councillors should be given a fair chance and they should be rewarded for their dedicated work. We need many reforms, including the extension to them of certain facilities. It is too much to expect councillors to carry on working without getting at least some reward and getting a fair crack of the whip.
The bulk of the local authorities are running deficits at the moment. The public are now beginning to understand what the facts are. Rates were abolished overnight and money has to be found somewhere else. Reform is needed on the financing front. This will be very difficult. The Minister said there is no simple solution. That is the case. Money cannot be found easily. We will have to go back to the taxpayer again if we are to provide a certain standard of services. We have to ensure that the local authorities can carry on and, to a certain extent, be self-financing.
Dublin County Council should be broken down into committees or areas. There is no point in having councillors from Finglas looking at the problems in Shankill or vice versa. They should be able to deal with their own areas and come together to make major decisions on general policy. Councillors should be responsible for problems such as zoning in their own areas.
I hope the Minister will keep in mind what I have said. When he is replying perhaps he might indicate at what stage the review is, and whether it will take into account the financing element of the restructuring of local government, and the various other problems I mentioned such as tree preservation, water problems, planning and finishing of estates, itinerants, and so on. This review should be completed as quickly as possible. The elections are being postponed for one year, but the public will still have an opportunity to go to the polls in June of next year.
The proposal to cancel the local elections this year is objectionable on a number of grounds. The manner in which the announcement was made was objectionable. On 23 December, two days before Christmas, when the Dáil was in recess and most people were concerned about other matters, a brief announcement was made that the local elections would not be held in 1984. That was the second occasion on which a similar major announcement was made prior to the Christmas holiday. That showed contempt for the people and for their right to know what the Government are doing and why they are doing it.
It is also objectionable on other grounds. The right of the people to elect local councillors to represent them is an important aspect of our democratic system. To fiddle around with it simply because it is expected that because support for the Government parties has fallen and they are likely to lose seats shows contempt for the ordinary people. The reason put forward for the cancellation of these elections for a year, or possibly two years, is that local government needs to be reorganised. Re-organisation will entail structural re-organisation and presumably financing re-organisation. That is a major undertaking. We are told that a review of what needs to be done is still in progress. That review has been in progress for at least ten years. Various Government bodies, State agencies, political parties and local organisations have been making recommendations and studying the whole question of re-organisation of local government for at least ten years and possibly longer. There is a report going back to 1945.
For any Minister to say he will reorganise local government between now and June 12 months is deliberately trying to mislead the House and the people. An amount of legislation has been promised apart from legislation on local government reorganisation. The Criminal Justice Bill is still being dealt with. It has still to go through Committee Stage. That is a major Bill. We have the Social Welfare Bill and the Finance Bill. The Minister for Health has promised us a family planning Bill. He has also promised us a children's Bill. Other Bills are to come before the House dealing with illegitimacy.
I am sorry to have to intervene but I think I heard the Deputy saying the Minister deliberately misled the house. To say he misled the House is one thing but to say he deliberately misled the House is another. That is not in order.
I did not intend to imply anything improper in regard to the Minister. I withdraw the word "deliberate". However, it is my contention that the Government are misleading the House — it may be that they are not doing so deliberately; they may not know what they are doing — in the claim that re-organisation of local government can be carried out between now and June of next year.
The amount of legislation promised between now and June 1985 cannot be processed in that time. It will not be possible to deal with legislation in regard to the reorganisation of local government in that time. Another argument put forward for cancelling local elections was that the elections to the European parliament were too important to be cluttered up with local elections on the same day. We were told that if local elections were held on the same day the importance of the elections to the European Parliament would be reduced. We were told it was necessary to give the European elections a clear run so that people would have a better understanding of what is involved. However, last week the Government voted down a proposal to hold the by-election in the Laois-Offaly constituency on the basis that it would be better to hold it on the same day as the elections to the European Parliament. We have also been told that there will be a referendum on the extension of voting rights to citizens of other EEC countries on the same day as the elections to the European parliament. Therefore, the Government's argument in regard to the importance of the EEC elections and not holding local elections on the same day is a spurious one.
The reason the Government want to postpone the local elections is that they are afraid of the electorate, afraid that they will lose power on various local councils and corporations. I have no doubt that if the Government had an opportunity, or could do so, they would postpone the elections to the European Parliament also. Obviously, they do not have the power to do that. One of the major problems in regard to the area of local government and one of the reasons for the crisis in that area is the manner in which the finance of local authorities has been reduced over the years. A promise was made in the House when domestic rates were abolished that the Government would meet the rate made by local authorities but that has not been kept. As the Minister of State is aware, Dublin Corporation received an increase of less than 1 per cent this year from the Government in lieu of rates. In effect in real terms that represents a cut of 9 per cent. At the same time local charges are being imposed in an attempt to bridge the gap between what the Government ought to be providing to local authorities and what they are giving. Local charges represent double taxation. Charges are being imposed on people for services paid for in PAYE tax.
If the Government are unable to meet the needs of local authorities from general taxation it is within their power to reform the taxation system and bring into the tax net those sections of the economy that are not paying their fair share in taxes. The question of whether the reorganisation or reform of local government will eventually introduce some form of local tax is a separate issue from that of local charges. It is important that it is made clear in the House that the vast majority of people are rejecting the local charges because it is a form of double taxation. They are very angry about them. The proposal by one of the partners in the Coalition to introduce a land tax has not been taken up by the Government yet. There is still time for those Members to do that in the Finance Bill. such a move would obviate the necessity to impose local charges. The loss of finance to local authorities as a result of the abolition of farm rates is one of the major causes of the shortfall in funds to such bodies.
The need for a reorganisation of local government is evident to all those involved in politics or local affairs. It is a major undertaking and I am convinced that this time next year the Government will be telling us that they will have to postpone the local elections for another year because they have not had time to complete their discussions, reviews or consideration of their proposals. I have no doubt we will be told that it will be 1986 before we can have the local elections. Reorganisation is needed and there is no reason why the local elections due to take place this year should not go ahead in conjunction with the elections to the European Parliament because reforms suggested by the Government later can be implemented.
On the question of local government reorganisation I should like to point out that the constituency, I represent, Dublin North-West, has two major urban areas, the Finglas and Ballymun areas. Finglas has a population in excess of 50,000 people which is the same, or even slightly more than, the population of the city of Limerick. However, Finglas does not have anything like the facilities or representation the city of Limerick has. When the Minister is dealing with reorganisation he should consider establishing local district councils in areas such as Finglas, Ballymun, Tallaght, Ballyfermot and all those villages that have blossomed into small towns on the periphery of Dublin city. In that way local democracy will become effective and people will feel they have local representatives to deal with the problems of their area.
In my area we have the ludicrous situation of Finglas, for electoral reasons, being split down the middle. The boundary line runs through the middle of Finglas village and people who represent Finglas West cover Cabra and Glasnevin, while representatives for Finglas East cover an area as far as Artane. As far as I am aware only one of the local representatives of the nine involved live in either of those areas. That is not satisfactory from the point of view of people who require representation. I urge the Government to re-think their decision to postpone the local elections, and to hold them at the same time as the elections to the European Parliament. I appeal to the Government to proceed as fast as possible with the reorganisation of local government and not to use spurious arguments simply to avoid a contest.
Having listened to the contributions this morning I feel I must respond because a great deal of the discussion seems to be taking place in a vacuum almost and we are not really getting on with the job we were elected to do. Some of the points made must be answered.
The Minister in his opening statement said the reason for the postponement of the elections was to permit a thorough examination into the structure and financing of the local government system to be completed before the next local elections. Deputy De Rossa and others cast doubt on the Minister's reasons. All I can say is that local government reform was part of the Government's programme 1981-1986. As secretary of the Fine Gael backbenchers committee I can tell the House that our committee has been looking at the problem of local government reform in recent months and the Minister is aware of that. The Seanad also has indicated in recent times that there is need for reform in many areas of the local government system because of changes generally. Some speakers have indicated some of them. Deputy De Rossa indicated some of them. What amazes me is the huffing and puffing which is going on on the Opposition benches because of the postponement of the elections. But the Opposition party postponed the elections on two different occasions in 1965 and again in 1972. On both occasions they were postponed for two years. Now they are carrying out their usual window dressing tactic.
One reason put forward by some speakers was that the Government are afraid to face the electorate because of the grave unemployment problem and the problems facing the agricultural industry. This could not be further from the truth. We were accused of cowardice by one of my colleagues from Cork. In a particularly bitter speech he went back into the past, into matters that are best forgotten. The elections are not being postponed because the Government are cowardly and afraid to face the public. If one looks at our record over the past 15 months one can see how very positive the Government have been in their attitudes to the grave problems facing the country. Taking the area with which I am most familiar, unemployment in Cork city and county is high but the rate of unemployment is decreasing now compared with 1982. That is of course, no consolation to those who are still unemployed.
Nobody is above criticism where this problem is concerned. To say one particular party can be blamed for the unemployment problem is totally dishonest and the efforts made by the Government to tackle the problem of unemployment are laudable. I have no doubt the public appreciate the efforts that have been made and are being made to solve the problem. It is a problem which did not come into existence overnight. Unfortunately the public seem to expect the Government to do everything and, more unfortunately still, Government efforts are not at times complemented as they should be by other bodies which could be active in job creation. The problem can only be tackled successfully by the combined effort of all interested parties. That is not the evolution at present.
I allowed the Deputy to go as far as he did because earlier today I think I allowed another Deputy the same latitude. However, matters like that are not in order from the point of view of detail in this debate.
The performance of Government councillors throughout the country and in the Cork region in particular is nothing to be ashamed of. In Cork over the last five years we have been active in carrying through the land use and transport scheme and at the moment we are involved in a review of the progress of that scheme. Deputy Cosgrave mentioned the problems facing local authorities—massive deficits, unfinished estates and so on. But these problems will continue until such time as we get real reform. People should judge the performance of councillors by their commitment to resolving the problems that exist. It is on those grounds performance should be judged and not on the cosmetic politics we have experienced in some recent years. The Government have achieved a great deal over the last 15 months and we will stand on our record in any local elections. We have dealt with issues which were utterly ignored by previous administrations, to their shame. The Government are dealing with the increasing crime rate through the Criminal Justice Bill. We have tackled the reform of the Dáil and the committee system is working satisfactorily. Where the environment is concerned the Government have gone from a situation in which there was complete connivance with Britain on nuclear dumping to an independent active opposition to such dumping.
This is a matter that would arise more appropriately on another occasion.
I was giving reasons to show why we are not afraid to face the public. I expect the local elections will be held in 1985 and the public will then give their full support for not only policies at local level but Government policy generally over the years in which we have been in Government. The public have the ability to differentiate between popularity and good government. They recognise that the present Government are taking action to tackle the major problems. We cannot expect to be popular because some of the actions we are taking are affecting people's lives but in the long run they will be for the benefit of the public. They can now differentiate between positive Government and the type of politics we have had in recent years and when we face the local elections in 1985 we will get a positive response from the public.
I am glad of the opportunity to speak on this motion. It is very unfortunate that the time of the Dáil has to be spent discussing an order of this kind. The postponement of the local elections is wrong because it is depriving the people of an opportunity to select and elect the people to represent their interests on the various local authorities over the next five years.
The concept of local government is suffering as a result of this postponement. The Government are not prepared to recognise that it is important to hold local elections regularly. The contributions of local authority members have been under-estimated for far too long. These people work in a voluntary capacity as members of local authorities, various sub-committees and statutory bodies. They represent the interests of the people in their area and, as I said, it is very unfortunate that the voluntary effort of these people has not been getting the recognition it deserves.
Local government is the cornerstone of our economy because in some way it affects the daily lives of every man, woman and child from the time they get up in the morning until they go to bed at night. The postponement of these elections is diminishing the status of local authorities and their members. The general administration of local authorities has a profound influence on the affairs of the nation and on the people who make up the population.
The provision of houses, whether private or local authority, is of prime importance to local authorities. From the day planning permission is lodged the local authorities are involved with all the decisions that have to be taken. The time has come for the Minister to take a look at the unnecessary bureaucratic duplication which exists between local authorities and the Department of the Environment. There is an enormous amount of public money wasted in this area. Local authority and Departmental officials are doing much the same type of work, yet the speed of communication and decision-making are hindered because of the system we operate. Plans for particular housing schemes are going from the local authorities to the Department with monotonous regularity. If a Departmental official decides that the plans need to be looked at, they are sent back to the local authorities and the engineers and architects spend more time examining them. Again the plans are sent to the Department and if further changes are necessary, they are returned to the local authorities. In this day and age we should be able to eliminate this type of unnecessary duplication. The method of decision-making in this area needs to be up-dated. This would eliminate the enormous wastage of public money which we see at present. This to-ing and fro-ing of plans must add to the administrative costs of the housing or sewerage scheme concerned.
Since this Government took office there have been very serious problems in relation to the payment and general operation of the house improvement grant scheme. Recently I learned of an old lady of 73 years who lived alone. Her son had emigrated a number of years ago but came home on holidays and realised she had neither sewerage facilities nor water supplies.
I appreciate the Deputy's concern about housing programmes and housing grants, but the Estimate for the Department of the Environment will be taken tomorrow and while I would allow a passing reference to housing, I would appreciate it if you would confine yourself to the terms of the motion. Perhaps you would contribute on the Estimate tomorrow.
This is merely a passing reference and I do not intend to dwell on it.
Some passing reference.
I wanted to tell the Minister of State of a case which would be of particular interest to him. This son proceeded to carry out the necessary repairs and development work to the house. He then found out he would be entitled to a house improvement grant but that was refused by the Department. Under a democratic system that type of thing should not happen. The probability is that if that old lady of 73 years were to remain in that environment eventually she would have to be moved to a geriatric hospital and this would mean considerable expense for the State. We should have the necessary flexibility and understanding in the application and operation of these schemes to ensure that this will not happen.
This is an ideal opportunity to refer to the serious situation that has arisen in relation to the financing of local authorities. Louth County Council find themselves £2 million in debt and the money required is not forthcoming from the Department of the Environment to keep the ordinary services in operation in the county. I am afraid that if local authorities are not given the funds they need many of them will go broke. The local government system will grind to a halt and the services provided by local authorities will be abolished.
In these very difficult times there must be a responsibility on the Government to provide funds to ensure that local authorities have the finances to carry out, and to expand where necessary, the services people have come to expect as their right. This Government are reneging on their responsibilities in this matter. We had the abolition of rates some years ago and all the parties agreed they were an unfair system of taxation. The necessary moneys were to be provided in the interim by the Department but this Government have decided that they will not operate that system. They propose to throw tax equity out of the window. Under the local government legislation passed last year the power will rest with county managers and the local authorities to raise by local taxation the money they need to operate services.
This does nothing for tax equity. Considerable difficulties have arisen throughout the country with regard to the collection of service charges and what is happening will not benefit the local authorities. The Minister will have to examine this matter again and realise that the money required by the local authorities for the operation of services must come from central funds. Louth County Council decided at their estimates meeting last Monday to seek a meeting with the Minister to discuss their problems, particularly the fact that they are £2 million in debt. I hope the Minister will meet them and discuss their problems and agree to provide the necessary money. The local authority must be given the funds to enable them to function for the coming 12 months.
The motion before the House refers to the postponement of local elections. I will allow only passing references to the points raised by the Deputy.
I do not wish to disagree with the Chair but much of what I have said relates to the operations of local authorities. I am a member of a local authority and these are the problems that face us. However, I will not dwell on them to a great extent because we will have the opportunity tomorrow to talk about such matters in more detail. I will try to confine my remarks on the subject to a passing reference. This year Louth County Council were promised an increase of 3.7 per cent but other local authorities have got in excess of that amount.
Again, the Deputy is moving away from the central theme of the motion before us. As the Deputy has pointed out, there will be an opportunity tomorrow for him to indicate his concern with regard to allocations for housing and roads. I would be grateful if the Deputy would confine his remarks to the matter before the House.
I am disappointed the Chair will not allow me to dwell on these points. It is my belief that elections, whether they be in respect of local elections or the European Parliament, provide an opportunity for the people to judge the performance of their representatives. Obviously people will judge that performance on the basis of the activities of the local authority in their area. If progress is not made with regard to, for instance, group water schemes or housing schemes it is inevitable that the blame will rest on the shoulders of the public representatives in the area concerned. Most members of local authorities put a tremendous effort into their work on behalf of the people whom they represent. However, it is an unfortunate fact of life that the financial constraints imposed by the Minister will determine to a great extent the success or otherwise of undertakings of local authorities.
The Minister said that the postponement of the local elections was for the purpose of giving him an opportunity to examine the whole operation of local government but that is no more than a smokescreen. At the moment we have an administrative structure that provides for a development plan every five years in a local authority area. Such a plan provide the guidelines within which a local authority will function. I cannot accept that the Minister wishes to postpone local elections for 12 months in order to restructure local government. The local elections could have been held and where the people considered that new representatives should be elected they could have actively participated in any restructuring proposals the Minister might bring forward. If the necessary political will is there on the part of the Minister to give the go-ahead, that will determine the success of local authorities in their activities.
I believe the time is right to consider the possibility of joint ventures with the public sector and community groups. For many years we have had in operation group water schemes and this has been most valuable in the development of our infrastructure. Those schemes are joint efforts by the local community, local committees, local authorities and the Department. They have been one of the success stories of local government. I hope that the possibilities in this area will be explored further. Housing co-operatives are a relatively new idea here which has not attracted the attention it should. The involvement of local public representatives in some areas has helped these co-operatives to some extent but their range of activity could be broadened considerably if a number of measures were introduced to help them along the way. The possibility of increased house grants under this——
Deputy, I have tolerated several passing references. You yourself have admitted that you will have an opportunity tomorrow to refer to different aspects of the Department of the Environment. We are dealing specifically with a proposal to postpone local elections and I appeal to you to confine yourself to debate on that subject.
I will come back to that, but I want to finish the point I was making in relation to housing co-operatives. I ask the Minister to consider the possibility of giving increased grants to participants in these housing co-operatives and to explore the possibility of AnCO and their apprentices becoming involved in this area. A shot in the arm could do a great deal for much-needed housing for those who are unfortunate enough to live in mobile homes and perhaps have one or two children.
To come back to the question of the local elections, it is very unfortunate that at this time the Government should take a decision to postpone them for the next 12 months. The down-grading of the role of the local authorities has been cultivated in the minds of the people by that postponement. People will see that decision in the context that the Government feel that local elections are not really essential in the running of the country, that people who have been members of local authorities for many years can continue to serve and that perhaps the opportunity should not be afforded to new members to come on to local authorities with fresh thinking, ideals and outlook generally. That they should not be allowed the opportunity to put their names on the ballot paper and let the people pass judgment on them. That is a great indictment of the Government's action in postponing these elections.
There is no reason why the local elections cannot be held. The European elections will be held in June and we may have a referendum then also, and no great extra cost would be involved in holding the local elections on the same day. We must conclude that behind the decision is the Government's fear of allowing the people to pass judgment on their performance in government over the last 16 months. Perhaps it would present an ideal opportunity for people to say: "We are dissatisfied with the type of policies being pursued, with the lack of cohesion, lack of direction and lack of proper encouragement to the people of the nation to look to the future and to haul ourselves out of the difficult economic situation we are in." The policies being pursued are only discouraging people, telling them that they must pay up, that taxation will be increased, that expansion and employment creation will simply have to wait, that if we have over 60,000 people under 25 unemployed it is not really relevant.
This postponement of the local elections will not afford the people in the street or in the countryside the opportunity to say to the Taoiseach and to the Fine Gael and Labour partners in the Coalition: "We are dissatisfied with your performance and unless you are prepared to change your policies and adopt a different strategy towards Government for the remaining part of your term you will not be re-elected." It is obvious that the Government have discovered that the people will give them that message if the local elections are held now; consequently the decision has been taken to postpone them. If we are to have such decisions which are of fundamental importance in the running of the country, if we do not recognise that our local authority structures are the cornerstone of our democracy, if people are not to be allowed every five years to elect their local public representatives to look after their needs and interests in their area, it is a poor day and perhaps a turning point for democracy here.
I hope that the postponement of the local elections will ensure that the reform which is overdue, particularly in the Dublin region which now accounts for approximately one-third of the population, will now be carried out. That reform is so much overdue that it is difficult to call local government in Dublin either "local" or "government" any longer. Neither word relates to the structural arrangements which prevail in the Dublin area. In the case of Dublin Corporation, the City Council of 45 members represents over half a million people. In electoral area No. 8, the one with which I am most familiar, an electorate of 48,000 elect four members to Dublin Corporation. A similar electorate would elect 40 plus members to Leitrim County Council or three Members to Dáil Éireann. Electoral area No. 8 in Dublin is the same size as a three-seat Dáil constituency. Many counties in this country have a population just about sufficient to elect three Members to Dáil Éireann. Therefore, the population represented by members of some local authorities, particularly in the Dublin region, is far in excess of anything that was intended by the original local government plan. We need smaller regions, smaller numbers represented by more councillors particularly in the Dublin area, so that they can deal with purely local matters.
The present situation causes problems in other areas. For instance, a bad stretch of roadway may underline the need for traffic lights or some such thing, but Dublin Corporation would be very reluctant to erect traffic lights in that area because of the precedent that would be set, perhaps encouraging the other side of the city to make similar demands. That should be a local issue decided by local people. They should decided whether they want traffic lights, stop signs, "children at play", signs or whatever else in their locality. That is what local government is all about. Switzerland has over 3,000 local authorities who have not the restriction of ultra vires. They can decide on the local issues within their community, without reference to central Government and this works very well. Our central Government are afraid to give to local communities the right of deciding local issues because they fear that this will in some way interfere with central policy. One instance is the eastern by-pass, regarding which the various local communities put their views, section by section. I argue very strongly for more local authorities and local councils, particularly in the Dublin region. If the postponement of these so-called local elections means anything, it should mean reform of local government, in particular in the Dublin region.
At present, local authorities of the size of Dublin Corporation and Dublin County Council are used as a springboard to Dáil Éireann. Let us be honest, it is an avenue, once a representative has established a reputation, to Dáil Éireann. We need to create two streams of government, local and central. If we continue to have such large local authority electoral areas we cannot expect local communities to have any voice in deciding what should be local issues such as traffic, sewerage and local planning matters. These matters are now being decided by well thought out principles, regulations, laws and by-laws which however, may not have a general application and which in many cases should not have. If local authorities are prepared to pay for their facilities, they should be allowed this right, provided it does not interfere with central Government.
Let us reform this whole area of local government. I am speaking now about the Dublin area about which I know most. Everybody in the Dublin area would agree that there is need for reform but there is disagreement between Dublin Corporation, Dublin County Council and Dún Laoghaire Borough Corporation as to how that reform should take place. There is disagreement as between Fianna Fáil members in Dublin Corporation and in Dublin County Council and as between Fine Gael members in these two bodies. It is not a party or an authority thing. Everybody agrees that something needs to be done, but there is very little consensus on what should be done.
I am chairman of the Dublin Corporation Local Government Reform Committee and we are finding it very difficult to obtain a consensus of opinion. Even if we do get it across party lines, we may find that our own party colleagues in the county council take a different view because they are comparing their powers with those of the corporation. There is a tremendous task to be carried out. We should define the activities of local authorities and ask should central Government be involved. A Traffic Bill passed through the House a few weeks ago and another will be brought forward shortly. In many cases regulations under such legislation should be decided by local communities. They may wish to put yellow grids at crossings, parking meters and "children at play" signs and those decisions should be left to them. Not only are the Government now involved but so also are several Government Departments, Government agencies, the traffic study group, the task force, the traffic committee of Dublin Corporation, the Department of the Environment, CIE and the Garda Commissioner — the list is endless. These issues should be decided locally. We must define local government responsibilities and hand them back to the local authorities which should be broken up into smaller units.
By comparison with Switzerland we do not know what local government is all about. The Department of the Environment might take a look at the Swiss method. It is a fallacy to talk about Government in terms of present local authority arrangements. The only way in which a local authority can direct the manager to do anything is by introducing a section 4 motion, which must be done in a very legalistic way. This method is used more by some authorities than by others. There is also the question of influence and certainly here my experience in Dublin Corporation has been very favourable. Standing committees certainly carry a lot of influence, but a stubborn manager can ignore the locally elected representatives if he so wishes. The Managerial Act has centralised a great deal of power in the hands of the manager and any reform of local government should include an examination of the desirability of continuing to centralise power to such an extent.
The local authority members, operating in an area in which they have grown up and with a knowledge of local problems and difficulties, would take a great pride in that area and would act responsibly in finding solutions to these problems than central Government appear to believe. Councillors, frustrated by not having any power, have engaged in publicity and caused excitement from time to time and that may engender fear and anxiety in the Department of the Environment, but given the authority which they should have, the local communities would use that authority responsibly. The Managerial Act should be examined with a view to putting the necessary powers in the hands of the locally elected members.
Much have been said and written about TDs being councillors and I am both — indeed the House has Ministers who are both TDs and councillors. However, the TD has as much right to be a councillor as has a doctor, an accountant, a solicitor, or a carpenter. However, if people are going into local government who are only interested in central Government and are using it as a means towards getting into central Government — present company excluded, of course — then perhaps we should examine this whole question in detail.
Is the Minister protecting someone?
Councillors could say that TDs should not be councillors. If it works one way, it should work another. If we are really interested in creating two streams, we should include in the list of people prohibited from standing for Dáil Éireann, councillors who under the new organisation would have new powers and share in the Managerial Act. They would then become comparable to certain local authority officials who would not be allowed to stand for Dáil Éireann. If we are serious about this there should be a mutually exclusive arrangement whereby TDs cannot stand for a council and councillors cannot stand for the Dáil. In that way we would divert the energies of people who are genuinely interested in local government into local government and people interested in national politics into the Dáil. That should be considered as part of the reform.
I have a few more suggestions to make as to how we proceed from here. From time to time we read in the papers about councillors suggesting to people that they should break the law. I have had experience where I did not realise I had a share in the lease on a very small office and I was reminded that there were rates still outstanding on that office which I did not know anything about. If they had not been paid I could have been debarred from being a member of a local authority. Members of local authorities can be debarred if they do not pay rates which are due. I am talking here about domestic rates. A similar regulation should apply to councillors who advise others to break the law. This matter needs to be looked at. We cannot have people who make by-laws or national laws advising other people to break those laws. If we are to have some sort of order in society we will have to expect from councillors and TDs that they do not advocate the breaking of laws. People who do this should be brought to account for it.
I hope that in the reform which must take place consideration will be given to dealing with the shortage of finance which local authorities are running into. One way to do it is to set up within local authorities a similar arrangement to the one we have nationally in relation to Government Departments, that is the Public Accounts Committee. The local government auditor, who examines the accounts of the local authorities and has absolutely no contact whatsoever with the local authority members, in future should report to the local authority members. We have had situations when reports of the local government auditor have not been presented to local authorities for three or four years after they were examined. They were only submitted under pressure eventually. Presumably they were submitted to the Minister but had not come from the Minister to the local authority. I maintain that any reform which is undertaken should change that system. Local authorities should be encouraged to set up a committee of public accounts. The local government auditor who examines the accounts should report directly to local government members and they could take whatever action they considered necessary. If this were done we could save unnecessary and wasteful spending because local government members, as we do on a national basis in relation to Government Departments, could debate the report of the local government auditor and decide to take steps to cut out wasteful spending. That would certainly help in relation to the funding of local government which would not cost the State anything.
Another thing which would help is if the Department of the Environment would give the decision about whether they will allow Dublin Corporation to run a lottery. Dublin Corporation have been seeking a decision from the Department of the Environment and the Minister. We met the Minister for Energy when he was Minister for the Environment who said he would give active consideration to the matter, but nothing has happened. Surely we should be given a decision yes or no. If the answer is no, why has it taken so long to tell us that? If the answer is maybe, why will they not tell us maybe and we can see if we can get any further information to help to sort out the problem. This needs to be decided on. I cannot understand why it has taken almost two years despite various written requests and various meetings, but there still has not been a decision. That is another way of dealing with the problem of local government funding.
I would like to make a suggestion as to how we should proceed from here. I believe we will have difficulty in getting consensus from all the different interest groups, from all those with experience — I am not just talking about elected members because people in the management end of local government could have suggestions to make. I believe there will be difficulty even within party lines. The Minister, after giving consideration to the various contributions in the House during this debate and the various submissions made to his Department, should then publish a Bill with specific proposals. We should not have any more White Papers or discussion documents. When the Second Stage has been completed the Bill should then be sent to the legislation committee who would take submissions from interested parties and decide on amendments to recommend to the House for Committee Stage. I do not think it is a political issue. I believe it is an issue on which Fianna Fáil would have difficulties within their group and we would have difficulties within our local authority groups, we would have difficulties with each other and local authorities would have difficulties with other local authorities about this. I am talking particularly about the position in Dublin. I believe that is the best way to proceed on this Bill. I hope the Minister finds that suggestion worth while.
(Dublin North-West): As a member of Dublin Corporation, the largest local authority in the country, I feel I should make a brief contribution. The excuse the Government have given for postponing the local elections is that they want an opportunity to reform local authorities. Everybody knows that the main reason for postponing the elections is that the Government fear facing the electorate at present. Last week a similar vague excuse was given when the Government opposed moving the writ to hold the by-election in the constituency of Laois-Offaly to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Ber Cowen. While the Government say they propose to reform local authorities they have not laid any proposals before the House about the way they propose to do this. There is no indication given how these reforms will be brought about. I question what the Government intend to do in reforming local authorities. Do they intend to carve up constituencies favourable to Government parties?
The unpopularity of the Government is very well known. The Dublin Central by-election proved that to the Labour Party who held seats in that constituency for a number of years. The former leader of the party held a seat there. That is the real reason why the Government are afraid to face the people. That result prompted them not to hold the elections. The Labour Party are the real losers. The people showed their dissatisfaction with the way the Labour Party changed. They projected themselves as socialists and custodians of the working people. They joined Fine Gael which could be described as a conservative party. This decision may have short-term benefits for Labour but in the long term the decision will be fatal.
I have no doubt that if the Government decide to hold the local elections the Labour Party will be the real losers. Fine Gael will not lose that much. These elections were due to take place in June 1984. What was wrong with the Minister going ahead with them? He has five years in which to introduce reform. There is no immediate need for reform although I agree that certain areas need to be reviewed.
The Government parties have control in Dublin Corporation. For the last five years they succeeded in electing a Lord Mayor from either Fine Gael or Labour. We are the largest political party and not once in the past five years has a member of our party been given the honour of being Lord Mayor. Part of Ballymun is under Dublin Corporation and the other part is under Dublin County Council. That creates problems for people living there. Some services are provided by Dublin Corporation in the county council area and others are provided by the county council. We made submissions to the Minister to bring the whole area under the jurisdiction of Dublin Corporation. It would be much better to bring it in under one authority. Dublin Corporation. It would be much better to bring owned by Dublin County Council. There is no need to postpone the elections so that this can be done. However, like our other proposals, this will probably fall on deaf ears.
The last local elections were held in 1979 when Fianna Fáil were in power. There were many industrial disputes at the time and it was not very pleasant for us to face the electorate. However, we took up the challenge. If we had not done so, we would have been described by the Opposition as cowards and afraid to face up to our responsibilities. The Labour and Fine Gael Parties had everything going for them at the time. The big issue in Dublin was the saga of Wood Quay. There were protest meetings all over the city and, as a result, many prominent councillors lost their seats. We favoured the decision to build offices on the land. Only for the industrial disputes and protests there would be four office blocks instead of the two we have. They will not be ready for occupation until 1985.
I recently attended an estimates meeting of Dublin Corporation. The question of the cost of renting office space arose. Large sums of money are paid for renting offices and councillors said they looked forward to the opening of the new office block. One Fine Gael councillor said it would be great because a lot of money would be saved. A colleague of mine informed the meeting that that councillor was one of the strongest objectors to the building of the offices and had expressed himself in terms of "lying in front of bulldozers" which would excavate the ground in order to build the offices. The decision we made has proved to be correct. The offices are there and will be occupied in 1985. If we did not encounter such severe opposition to the building of the four office blocks we would have saved even more money in the long term.
There is much concern at the Government's decision to change the legislation and empower city and county managers to make charges. The only charge we have now is the water charge which many householders have refused to pay. Deputy Mitchell said it was irresponsible of elected members to advise people not to pay these charges. Never at any time have I advised people not to pay them. Local authorities are empowered to take anyone who does not pay the charges to court. When Fianna Fáil abolished rates we did so because it was an unjust system of taxation. A householder in poor circumstances had to pay the same rate as his wealthy neighbour. We do not apologise for abolishing them. There is strong resistence by residents associations and ACRA to paying these charges. In some cases it will cost the local authorities more to enforce payment. I think the Government have got the message and that is why they are postponing the elections. They think the climate will be more favourable for them in 1985. However, I have no doubt that if the climate is not more favourable then that the elections will be postponed for another year. Nevertheless, the Government should have the courage to face the people. The decision to postpone the elections is undemocratic.
Much has been said by members of the Government parties in the past about the involvement of young people and I know many young people, representative of all parties, who are very disappointed because they cannot contest local elections. We have also heard much about the involvement of more women and I have no doubt that many more would contest these elections. I am sure they are also very disappointed that the elections are not being held. The excuse the Government gave for opposing the writ last week was to save additional finance. They proposed holding the Laois-Offaly by-election on the same day as the European elections on 14 June. Would they not have saved additional finance if they had gone ahead with the local elections on the same day as the European elections? I have no doubt that no matter how long these elections may be postponed the people will remember the decisions the Government have made since they took office.
The longer this debate goes on the more I feel I should come into the Chamber equipped with a snorkel and mask because we are in danger of being washed away in a flood of crocodile tears from the Opposition with regard to putting off the local elections. Their protestations can be for only two reasons: that they are making this case for purely political reasons to try to embarrass the Government or because they do not think that local government is in need of reform. If that is their opinion, I submit that members of the Fianna Fáil Party who are members of local authorities have not been taking their job seriously because there is a crying need for local government reform. This applies especially to the constituency which Deputy Barrett represents and I urge the Opposition to stop shedding these crocodile tears and to address themselves to the relevancy of putting off local elections, that is to the whole area of local government reform.
I welcome the postponement for another year of local elections. Of course we would all welcome elections being put off for the next 15 years so that we could stay safely in our seats without having to face the electorate and be in competition with our party colleagues. The postponement of the elections will concentrate the minds of the officials of the Department of the Environment and local authority members who have the best contribution to make towards the reform of local government and individual political parties and give them an opportunity to come up with suggestions for reform. It will also concentrate the minds of the general public on letting us know in what areas changes should be made. There is no doubt that local government, especially as it exists in Dublin city and county where one third of the country's population lives, is no more relevant to the people than some people feel the Dáil is. The city and county of Dublin have grown in the last ten years out of all proportion but the structures of local government are still the same. After the abolition of rates in 1977 — and, in fairness, all sides of the House approved of that decision — unfortunately people did not look ahead to see what would happen when they had not to pay rates.
In the area which I represent most of the development has been in the area of housing. The local authority get a percentage increase based on the rateable value of the houses. If that percentage increase is very small, as it is this year, there is no way in which the local authority can raise extra finance through the business sector because the percentage of business in Dublin County Council is very small compared to the whole administrative area of the county council. We have no option but to look at the area of charges, which I feel must be further examined. There were many protests when the law was changed to allow corporations and county council managers to raise charges. The reality is that the executive function was always there to raise water charges in county council administrative areas. There was no major change there, county council areas in Dublin have always paid water rates, even since the abolition of domestic rates.
The whole area of charges needs to be further examined. A county council should be able to decide what amentiy is needed in their area — it could be a golf course or a graveyard — and charges should be levied for the time it takes to provide such a service. Of course the people must want such a service and then they would be willing to pay for it. When the service was provided the charges should then be dropped — in other words, people would realise that there is not a bottomless pit and that you cannot keep providing more services without somebody paying the price. It is all very well to say to go back to central Government but it is the people who are financing central Government, so it is just catch 22. People should have the power to say to the managers of county councils that they are prepared to finance an amenity which they require. We cannot continue as we are at present with requests ad infinitum for more public facilities, playing fields and community services. Somebody must bear the cost. I agree with some of what Deputy Michael Barrett said, but we are not afraid to face the electorate. I know the kind of work councillors have been doing and they will not lose their seats. They have been doing their jobs diligently and courageously. The reason for the postponement is not that we are afraid of losing our seats. It is to allow in-depth examination and reform so that when we go to the electorate they will see that local government means something in their area.
Dublin County Council are the local authority who represent the largest number of people. Seven or eight years ago they found they could not continue within the structures of their standing orders and they amended them in order to break up the council area into four districts. One general committee dealing with planning was not working. People in Tallaght, Malahide, Portmarnock and Swords did not feel they were being represented. The setting up of four district committees had great advantages because the problems of individual areas could be raised. Now even those district committees are becoming mini-councils but they have no power and are of less benefit than when they were established. We have reached a crisis in County Dublin.
Deputy Barrett mentioned areas of overlap between the city and county. There are parts of his electoral area for the corporation which I represent on the county council. He said there were corporation houses built on land owned by the county council. In fact the corporation have built large estates in county council administered land. The county council do not own the land and the corporation are the biggest land owners in Dublin county. One local authority are developing in another local authority's area and housing people. Rows are building up between them because the county council feel that the corporation are housing their people in the county area and that therefore the onus should rest on the corporation to provide services such as water and sewerage connections. Even the councillors are at odds with each other instead of working for the betterment of the people they represent. That is not the way it should be.
We must tackle the problems which arise where boundaries differ from the local authority administrative areas. This happens in other places besides Dublin. People who are tenants of one local authority do not know to whom they should turn. It is the same in regard to private developments. Small builders are awarded contracts by the corporation in county council areas and years can go by before the two local authorities make up their minds about who should be responsible for planting trees, maintaining footpaths and providing traffic wardens at schools. The people become more and more confused.
I know that the Minister and the Minister of State realise the problem. They are both former members of local authorities and have personal experience of the frustration of councillors coming up against these problems.
The time has come when people should be able to go to local offices and report their problems. Let us consider, for example, the case of a person whose drains have become blocked. Local authorities can, by making a small charge, enter private property and clear out the drains. The charge is much less than a private firm would demand and it is a service we should try to maintain. Because of the increase in crime and the danger of being robbed, local authority staff will not take money at the door. The county council are statutorily obliged to impose a charge because they are not allowed to carry out work on private property at public expense. A person who rings the county council offices to report the problem is told to go into the offices in Parnell Square, pay the charge, take the receipt to the office in O'Connell Street, sign a form stating that the charge has been paid and obtain another receipt. Then the people in the O'Connell Street office ring the local office concerned, tell them the money has been paid and that the drain should be cleared. There may be a delay before a person is able to go into the city centre and carry out this procedure and in the meantime the drains will remain blocked. This problem causes a lot of flak for the county council.
I would hope that local council offices would be provided so that people could report their problems and have them handled locally. There should not be a long series of letters and phone calls with the delays entailed.
There are more than 460,000 people living in the Dublin County Council area and a survey would probably show that most of them do not really know who runs the libraries and look after the graveyards or who is responsible for the implementation of the Litter Act and the Water Pollution Act. They would probably think it was somebody in central Government. The functions of local authorities are a complete mystery to most people. They tend to think of local authorities as being pothole and drain merchants who are not important in day-to-day living. A publicity and public relations job is necessary. We tried to make our council more relevant and we in Fine Gael tried very hard to get agreement regarding the need for a public relations exercise, and on our council in particular. Unfortunately Opposition councillors did not always agree with us and said it would be money badly spent.
I still maintain that we should have tried to alert the public to the problems of the local authorities. If we had done so there would not be so much opposition to what the local authorities are now forced to do, that is, to charge for some of the services. I abhor the tactics of some members of the public and some parties, not necessarily the Fianna Fáil Party, in trying to undermine the local authorities when they are trying to do their job responsible. These people are trying to stir up agitation about the imposition of charges. They are adopting an irresponsible attitude in saying that water is free because it comes down from the heavens and nobody should pay for it.
The reality is that water comes down from the heavens, but there would be great opposition from the public if the only way they could get water was to have a barrel outside their back kitchen door. Providing clean drinking water to the general public is a very expensive process. The other day we had a Private Notice Question on the problem of dirty water going into people's homes. To ensure that individual houses get a good clean water supply costs hundreds of pounds. Charges of £30, £40 or £50 go nowhere near paying for the maintenance of a clean water supply, providing extensions to reservoirs and providing new pipes in older areas where the pipes have become dirty and unusable and need replacement. I abhor this irresponsible attitude on the part of people who are organising public meetings for reasons we all know. They are trying to stir up opposition to these charges. If you talk to the ordinary person who is trying to make both ends meet he or she will understand the problems facing councillors.
In any review of local government the financing of local authorities is of major concern. Local authorities cannot continue as they are. In Dublin County Council, 75 per cent of the allocation for the sanitary services budget goes on paying loan charges. This does not leave much money for new work. It was decided that three new towns would be developed in Dublin county, but no allocation was given to Dublin County Council to finance them. They have had to finance the development of those new towns within the framework of the ordinary money they get. That must be taken into account by the people looking into this reform. If individual councils are set up for these new towns these problems can be tackled when they have financial autonomy to run their own affairs.
There is no point in passing on new legislation, desirable though it may be, to the local authorities and turning the authorities into a dumping ground for new legislation. There is no point in saying we have introduced water pollution control, new litter Bills and new dog control legislation and they are now the responsibility of local authorities. Local authorities cannot implement that legislation because they have not got the money. They cannot provide the refuse dumping places which are required under the Litter Act. They cannot provide dog control officers. They cannot provide water pollution officers. They are stretched to the end of their tether to keep the existing services going. We are fooling ourselves by enacting legislation and passing it on to the local authorities as they are structured now. D day has come for local government reform.
I welcome this postponement to allow the minds of the two Ministers responsible, the civil servants, the members of local authorities, the political parties, independent members of local authorities and the public to concentrate on the problem. I hope a call will go out from here today to interested bodies to start gathering their thoughts together. I would be afraid that Deputy G. Mitchell's suggestion that this matter should be hived off to the legislation committee might delay the proceedings. I hope submissions are already coming in. If not, I hope the Minister will call on the interested groups to make their submissions now so that the process will not be delayed further. If it is decided that the matter should be sent to the legislation committed I will agree to that when the time comes, but we should be looking for these submissions now.
The longer this debate goes on the less convincing are the arguments used on the other side of the House. Back bench Members are now being whipped in to try to convince themselves that this is all about postponing the elections until we have had local government reform. Many of the points raised by the last speaker are not related to reform. They are administrative matters relating to improvements and the more efficient and effective provision of services in all local authority areas. That should be an ongoing process. It is not an issue to be raised in this House as an excuse for doing something which is openly seen to be a political exercise.
Only once in the past 30 years Fianna Fáil faced local elections in Opposition. That was in 1974. Every politician knows that there is immense electoral benefit to be gained by the Opposition at local election time. The point I am most concerned about is the maintenance and continuance of democracy. We all like to be protected from elections for as long as we possibly can. I agree with Deputy Mitchell that Deputies should be councillors, although that is not always possible for many reasons. I did not come through the apprenticeship of a local authority. I was a Deputy before I was a county councillor. My years of service with a local authority and some of their subsidiary committees were extremely useful to me as a Member of this House. They made me aware of the many ordinary problems which arise in the administration of local affairs. Every Member of this House should remember the importance of local administration and local government control in their own areas.
I will have an opoportunity to resume this debate later on. At this stage it is difficult for me to open up the avenues about which I wish to speak. I am disappointed that the local elections are not going ahead. I have referred to democracy and its importance. It is being attacked and abused now. Traditionally local elections have been used by all parties — and perhaps by parties in Opposition more than by parties in Government — to introduce new people. They give small parties and independent groupings an opportunity to nominate a person to contest them. This helps to maintain democracy and gives young people an opportunity to become aware of the very important aspects of local government administration, the problems and advantages and the ability to maintain links with bureaucracy.
Reform is a very big area. It is a very important word, but it cannot be used as an excuse by the local authority of which Deputy Owen is a member for not making administrative decisions which are necessary.
Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.