Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 17 Dec 1985

Vol. 362 No. 13

Local Government (Reorganisation) Act, 1985, (County Borough of Galway) Order, 1985: Motion.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. Kavanagh)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the following Order in draft:

Local Government (Reorganisation) Act, 1985, (County Borough of Galway) Order, 1985.

a copy of which Order in draft was laid before Dáil Éireann on 6th December, 1985.

The Local Government (Reorganisation) Act, 1985, provides a framework for the establishment of Galway as a county borough and as Members of this House will be aware, I propose to fix 1 January 1986 as the day on which the new county borough will come into being. The 1985 Act, anticipating this new status, broke the electoral link between the city and the county. The city electorate at the local elections held in June 1985 did not participate, therefore, in the elections to Galway County Council. The 1985 Act also provided that all rights, privileges, powers and duties of the borough corporation would continue to vest in the new county borough corporation and enabled the Minister by order to make such supplementary provisions as necessary to ensure a smooth transition and to deal with any matters arising in relation to the establishment of the county borough. This is the purpose of the draft order now before the House.

I would like to refer now to the more important provisions of the draft order. Articles 1 to 3 are standard provisions relating to citation, definitions and commencement. Article 4 confers a general power on the two local authorities and the Minister to take such actions as are necessary to facilitate the establishment of the county borough.

Article 5 provides that the county council will continue to provide services for the county borough and on the basis of the same financial arrangements as have applied heretofore; provision is also included for revised financial arrangements to be agreed locally. While the new county borough will on its establishment become legally responsible for certain services, including fire services, libraries, and motor tax, which are at present provided by the county council, clearly it would not be practical to have separate city services in place in all respects on 1 January next.

Article 5, therefore, provides that the county council will continue to provide services for the city on the existing financial terms, or on new terms to be arranged. It will be a matter for the two councils to decide on the future arrangements for these services. As I explained in the Seanad last week, they may well decide that there is mutual benefit in continuing some or all of the combined services but provision is made in article 6 for the city to set up its own services in the matters in question if it decides on that course.

Under article 6 the corporation may at any time in the future agree with the county council to discontinue shared arrangements in relation to any service. Indeed in the event of disagreement with the county council they may decide to assume responsibility for a service and serve a notice to this effect on the county council. After five years, responsibility for the service in the city would automatically transfer to the corporation. This period of notice is required to allow the county council to adjust their service. I would expect that, in practice, the question of the future arrangements for services which are at present shared will be decided by amicable agreement.

The upgrading to county borough status has financial implications for the revenues and expenditures of both authorities. The city and the county have been wedded together financially, organizationally and administratively for the past 100 years. It would be impossible, therefore, and undersirable to effect a complete separation overnight. To do so would cause major disruption. The net effect of the upgrading will be that the county council stands to lose revenues previously provided by the borough on a scale which could affect the county council seriously. It is considered necessary and reasonable that there should be a financial adjustment between the councils in respect of this factor. Article 7 provides for such an adjustment to be worked out locally or, failing local agreement, to be determined by the Minister.

As I indicated in the Seanad, I am very pleased to be in a position to say that I will be making a substantial contribution to this financial settlement by way of additional grant allocation to the county council. The addition will cover 50 per cent of the net cost of the adjustment subject to a maximum amount of £200,000 in 1986. The possibility of additional subvention for a period of years subsequently will be favourably considered: it is recognised that the adverse impact on the county council finances of the upgrading of the city will be a continuing one, though it should be of diminishing significance as the two councils adapt to their new financial frameworks.

I must stress, as I did in the Upper House, that this commitment to provision of special financial support is an exceptional gesture complementing the Government's decision that Galway city should have conferred on it the status of a county borough. There is no precedent for such subvention and it will not in itself constitute a precedent in relation to any other adjustments that come about in the course of the local government reform programme, and which are of a different nature. The commitment to provide special financial support for the county council was warmly welcomed in the Seanad and was generally recognised as a generous step in terms of providing for the emergence of the new county borough.

I am sure that it will be so recognised in this House as well. To begin with, the corporation are in a much healthier financial state than the county council. Secondly, if, as it seems to be the case, the county council will be at a net loss which will be in the region of £400,000 as a result of the upgrading and related reduction in county-at-large revenues, it follows that the corporation, who are already in a relatively comfortable financial position, stand to gain by something of the same order. Given this situation and the long and complicated financial relationship which has existed for so long between the borough and the county, it is logical and reasonable that there should be this provision for financial adjustments. As I have indicated, I will be making a substantial contribution to the county council, thus reducing by approximately half the amount to be made up by the corporation. In all the circumstances, and given the limited funds at my disposal and the genuine needs of other local authorities, many of whom are in a much worse financial situation than the corporation, I am satisfied that the course which I have adopted is the sensible one and strikes a reasonable balance between the interests of the various parties concerned.

Of course representatives of the corporation can argue that there are special problems and needs in the city area and that they need every penny for new services in expanding areas. This, however, is an argument which every local authority in the country — and very often does — put forward. It is my duty as Minister for the Environment to take an overview of all these competing needs and demands and somehow to match these with available resources. I feel I have done this in the present case in a way which respects the particular situation of both the county council and the corporation.

Article 8 will ensure that the county council will be in a position to prevent any undue financial burden falling on Ballinasloe UDC arising from the upgrading. I understand that such an effect is not anticipated at present and the provision, therefore, is a contingency one.

The schedule to the order contains various technical provisions relating mainly to management and statutory demands. In so far as management is concerned the 1985 Act provides that joint management will continue. However, under that Act when the present manager cases to hold office it will be open to both authorities, if they so wish, to discontinue this arrangement. The provisions of the schedule are supplementary to this and are technically necessary to enable relevant provisions of the County Management Acts to be applied to the situation.

The provisions in relation to statutory demands — drainage, arrears of supplementary welfare, malicious injuries — provide in effect for the splitting of such demands between the city and county and on the same financial basis as has applied heretofore. Prior to the upgrading the county council paid for these demands and recovered the corporation's contribution via the county demand.

I would like now to say a few words about the extension of the borough boundary. The extension was agreed between the councils locally and was subsequently recommended by the County and County Borough Electoral Area Boundaries Commission. The 1985 Act provided that the extension would have effect for electoral purposes and the borough council was, accordingly, elected on the basis of the enlarged area in June. Last week I made an order bringing the boundary extension into effect for all purposes from 1 January 1986. A copy of that order has been laid before both Houses. I wish to repeat here what I said in the Seanad, namely that the members of both authorities are to be congratulated on their positive and non-contentious approach to this question.

The separation of the city and county arising from the upgrading is, of necessity a complex undertaking given the fact that they have been linked for almost a century. Some of the provisions of the order bear witness to this complexity. However, as I stated in the Seanad, I have no doubt that the transition to a county borough will be a smooth one and that the necessary transitional arrangements will be approached by the elected members of both the city and county in the same positive spirit in which they dealt with the boundary extension.

Galway city has a long and proud history stretching back almost a millennium. In the present local government era, town commisioners were established in 1853 and an urban district council had been established by the end of the last century. By an Act of 1937 the urban district was upgraded to borough status. The present change to county borough status which was announced to coincide with the city's quincenntenial celebrations marks, therefore, the culmination of a long process of civic development for the city.

Finally, I would like to offer my good wishes to the citizens of Galway and their elected representatives as the city starts a new phase in its historical development which will take it into the 21st century.

I commend the draft order to the approval of the House.

Mr. Molloy

Ba mhaith liom fáiltiú roimh an ordú seo agus comhgairdeas a dhéanamh leis an Aire as ucht an stadais nua atá á bhronnadh aige ar chathair na Gaillimhe, an chathair in ar rugadh mé féin, cathair a bhfuil áit thábhachtach aici i stair na tíre seo, stair an-fhada a théann siar 1,000 bliain, mar a dúirt an tAire inniu, agus cathair a bhfuil tábhacht faoi leith aici chomh maith os rud é go bhfuil cuid den chathair sin sa cheantar atá deimhnithe mar cheantar fíor-Ghaeltachta. Is í an t-aon chathair sa tír ina bhfuil cuid den fhíor-Ghaeltacht. Dá bhrí sin is ócáid stairiúil í seo ó thaobh stair rialtas áitiúil sa tír seo. Ar son pháirtí Fhianna Fáil gabhaim buíochas leis an Rialtas as ucht an beart atá déanta acu do Ghaillimh san ordú seo agus san Bhille a bhí os comhair na Dála tamaillín ó shin mar gheall ar mhéadú ar an chathair agus rudaí eile a bhaineann leis seo.

Galway is one of our oldest cities with a documented history stretching back a thousand years. Last year, the city celebrated the 500th anniversary of the granting of its town charter. In 1937 the new Irish Government upgraded the status of the city to a borough and restored the mayoral office. Indeed, in the early sixties, the mayoral sword and mace were returned to the city from — I think — the Hearst organisation in America who had somehow come into possession of it.

The order before the House is significant as it now raises the ancient city of Galway to county borough status alongside the other great cities of Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford. From 1 January 1986 Galway city will be an independent, mainline local authority in its own right with full authority to guide its future development availing of the rights, privileges, powers and duties conferred on county boroughs under the various statutes.

Galway Corporation and the citizens of Galway would wish me to express our appreciation to the Government for facilitating this change of status and in particular for generously providing the sum of £200,000 for 1986 to ease the financial loss to the county authority arising from the change of status and I will refer to that later. In conjunction with the change of status, the Government have also facilitated a major extension of the city boundary which has been amicably agreed between the city council and the county council. This extension will involve the city in payment of compensation of an amount not yet agreed although a figure of £588,000 has been identified as the net burden on the county council at 1984 levels excluding loan charges.

Further meetings will take place between the city council and the county council to try to resolve how the city will pay compensation of this order over a period of years. Hopefully, that matter can be resolved between both authorities without the Minister having to arbitrate as is provided for in this order. What is of more immediate concern are the financial implications for the two authorities arising out of the status change proposed under the Local Government (Reorganisation) Act, 1985, which will take effect from 1 January 1986 and for which this order provides.

At present Galway Corporation contribute 27.97 per cent of the net county at large charges. This figure would go to at least 31 per cent after the boundary is extended. The county demand on the city this year is £1,553,931.40p, or approximately £1.5 million. The items making up this demand have been classified under a number of headings: shared services — that is, services shared between the council and the corporation — statutory demands which are made under various statutes and which the city council will be obliged to pay, services which can be taken over by the new council from the county council, and major urban roads. In examining the effect of the county at large charge and how it can be divided between the two authorities, both authorities have identified these services — the shared services which will continue, the statutory demands which they cannot avoid and the services which will be continued by the corporation. Out of this figure there will remain a sum of county at large charges which would continue to fall on the city were it not for this order, for this change in status, and the city would not see any obligation to continue to pay for services which they were not getting. That sum was identified as £423,000 and presented a major crux for the two authorities in seeking to reach agreement because other serious financial matters have to be resolved as regards the boundary extension.

Both authorities went to the Minister, explained the financial difficulties arising from this change and asked him to come to their rescue to facilitate the continuation of the amicable settlement of these matters which had been achieved up to now and which could only be continued if the Government were to come to the assistance of the council, who would lose approximately £423,000 annually. I am pleased to thank the Minister for meeting that request in some way, although he did not meet it fully or adequately. The amount was identified as £423,000 and he offered to pay £200,000 in 1986. The Galway authorities are concerned about what will happen in 1987 and the following years, but I will come back to that in a moment.

The position facing Galway County Council is therefore a continuing annual loss of £423,000 arising from this status change and the corporation would have to finance services in the large new area which is being added while at the same time paying a substantial sum in compensation to Galway County Council. Section 5 (2) of the order provides for the payment of a financial sum in compensation for these matters. That payment will be greatly assisted by the contribution of £200,000, but the difficulty the corporation identify in this order is as follows. If they are to pay county at large charges for services which continue to be provided by the county in future years, it would be around 30 per cent of the cost based on the product of a penny in the pound; but there is nothing in this order which will protect the corporation against excessive expenditure by Galway County Council in improving their facilities in future years, knowing that under this order Galway Corporation will be obliged to pay almost one-third of the cost. It was hoped that the Minister, having recognised that the order was faulty in that regard, would have come forward today with an amendment to protect the corporation against such added increase in costs in future years. These county at large charges, which include the fire service and the library service could represent heavy capital expenditure. If, for instance, Galway County Council decide to undertake extensive capital expenditure in the towns throughout the county in future years, so long as this facility continues in operation the city would be obliged to pay practically one-third of the cost. I am sure the Minister will accept that that would not be a fair imposition on the new city council, who would have no representation at county council level and who would get no benefit from any of the services the county council provide for in their own area.

It is accepted that the city has some obligation to continue to pay a proportion of its county at large charges in regard to those services which have been provided up to 1 January, but it is unreasonable to write the order in such a way that the corporation could become liable to pay such a high proportion of the cost of future extension of these services in the county. Before the order goes through this House I appeal to the Minister to amend it by adding a new subsection to section 5 introducing a clause which would protect the corporation. It could be worded in such a way that no new extensions or major enhancement of the services would be undertaken by the county without the prior agreement of the city council. If that clause is inserted, it will meet the existing point of contention.

Section 7 deals with the amount of compensation which the Minister has agreed to pay in 1986. The Minister said that the possibility of additional subvention for a period of years subsequently would be favourably considered. They are just words; there is no commitment there. We have found the Minister very understanding and he responded generously in the amount he is committing for 1986, but there is a great fear that no further financial assistance will be made available. If the Minister is not in a position to put a figure on it at present, perhaps when he replies he would give an assurance to the House that he is making a commitment to continue providing for at least a further ten years a subvention of the 50 per cent net cost of the adjustment which has been identified and on which he has put a maximum figure of £200,000. The least the Minister should do if he is not making a provision for this in the order is to give a commitment in the House so that when we come to 1987 the city council and the county council will be able to look to this commitment knowing that the money will be provided. That is a very important point and I hope the Minister will respond to it in a positive way.

I want to discuss the anomaly which has existed whereby the local authorities in County Galway — the county council, the corporation and the urban district council of Ballinasloe — have had to contribute 75.86 per cent of the cost of supplementary welfare to the Western Health Board whereas in other health board areas the amount contributed by the local authorities varies from 23 per cent to 58 per cent. The local authorities pay 23 per cent to the North-Western Health Board, local authorities in the Eastern Health Board area contribute only 24 per cent, in the north-eastern area they contribute 29 per cent, in the south-eastern area they contribute 41 per cent, in the mid-western area they contribute 47 per cent, in the southern area they contribute 49 per cent and in the midlands the amount is 58 per cent. However, in the western area the local authorities are obliged to contribute 75 per cent. As the Minister knows, a constitutional case is pending in this connection. There will be a continuing liability on the local authorities to meet the arrears that have been built up. We do not know what will be the outcome of the court case.

I ask the Minister to ensure that in the new arrangements the anomalous percentages are altered and that the contributions will relate to an average figure. Alternatively, some other satisfactory formula should be introduced. The local authorities in the Western Health Board region should not lose out because of the anomaly that has existed during the years. I hope the Minister will take account of that under the new arrangement whereby supplementary welfare will be paid from the Exchequer with a consequential cut in the rates support grant. We do not want our rates support grant to be cut by that amount and I am sure the Minister will agree that would be most unfair.

I wish to thank the Minister for his attitude in this matter. We have found him forthcoming and very helpful and I have no hesitation in offering our sincere thanks and congratulations to him. We are pleased he has accepted the invitation of the Major to come to Galway on 1 January for this historic occasion, accompanied by some of the officials who have been working on this matter for the past few months. We hope they will celebrate with us the launching of Galway in its new status into the future years which we hope will be years of growth and progress for the citizens who will benefit in time from the important decisions we are making today.

Mr. Coogan

I should like to thank the Minister for bringing this order before the House. I am speaking on behalf of the constituents of Galway city and county in welcoming what is being proposed here. I have not heard one dissenting voice. People have asked a few questions and I was able to explain to them that this is what I would call a rite de passage, a maturation of the city. As was mentioned by the Minister and Deputy Molloy, Galway is at least 1,000 years old. It started as a fishing village at the mouth of the Corrib, on the beautiful Galway Bay.

Mr. Molloy

Galvia.

Mr. Coogan

Yes. I had a horse of that name. In time Galway received the great accolade of becoming a corporation and today it has reached the status of borough council. During that period Galway was noted for its commercial activities and as a great trader with Europe and particularly Spain. For a while Galway descended in the economic scale but in recent times there was a sudden revival, particularly in areas of high technology. It is a recognition of this growth, of the will of the people to work, their commitment to new industry and their ability, that has brought about the change in status.

I should like to thank the Taoiseach who first mooted this idea and announced it on 1 January last year and I should like to thank the Minister not just for bringing in the order but for allowing expansion of the city. I think the new boundaries have meant that Galway is the second largest city in the south of Ireland. We do not have the same population as the other cities that are borough councils but I am sure that Galway with its good financial base will be an attractive city for people to live in and to work and that the new areas will develop to the same standards as the existing city. One of the problems we will have to face is the prospect of having a two-tier system: in other words, that the existing city would have services of a higher standard than the areas outside. The Minister has given us an opportunity to update those services.

Articles 5.1 and 5.2 refer to the provision of services. I would go a little further than Deputy Molloy in that connection. Joint services basically mean that the county council will run the library and fire services and the motor taxation office and there will be no representation from the borough council. The American War of Independence started on the note of no taxation without representation. With that in mind I suggest that article 3 be included with article 5 and the wording could be on the following lines: "Notwithstanding article 5.2, the borough council shall not be expected to make any contributions to the cost of any additional improvements and services or new works provided by the county council subsequent to the agreement of 1 January other than agreement between the county council and the new borough council".

Article 6 provides that in five years the borough council can decide to opt out of those services. It was not clear to me when I read the order whether there would be any provision made at the end of the five years if there was no agreement prior to that whereby the borough council would have to reimburse the county council for those services. If no agreement is reached between the borough council and the county council, the Minister might consider an addendum to article 6.3 on the following lines: "In default of agreement between the county council and the borough council, the financial agreement shall be determined by the Minister". There is nothing unusual or extreme about that. I am merely pointing out there is no format for such an agreement in the order.

I would go as far as Deputy Molloy regarding the contribution by the Minister, namely, the sum of £200,000 or 50 per cent. It should be possible to include an addendum to article 7 to the effect that a minimum of 50 per cent of this adjustment be paid by way of grant from the Exchequer. I should like a period of time to be given for this. I am sure we can depend on the goodwill of the Minister but it would be no harm to write it in.

I congratulate the Minister on what we accept is a great honour for Galway city, which has also been recognised by the county council. This was reflected in the goodwill shown by the county council when I was a member of that body when they decided without any acrimony to extend and allow the areas in question into the city. I hope this goodwill will continue and that there will be no disagreement. However, if there is the possibility of acrimony there should be a provision to minimise it, if not eliminate it.

I should like to thank the Minister for accepting the invitation to join us on 1 January for our day of celebration. We will be honoured to have him in Galway. I am sure Deputies on the opposite side will agree with me that Galway city and county are honoured by this provision.

Mr. Kitt

I thank the Minister for having met the joint deputation from Galway Corporation and Galway County Council on 30 October. The Minister and his officials listened to the strong case we made and has gone some way to meet our case. I would like to repeat the point made by the deputation that there was no conflict with the Minister: we were simply asking the Minister to finance the new status of Galway. It was a Government decision to give the new status to Galway and we were asking the Government to honour that commitment.

I am glad the Minister has gone some part of the way by making £200,000 available to finance the change in status, and I welcome that as Chairman of Galway County Council. Originally we looked for a figure of £423,000, made up of pensions, salaries and road works in the county. This figure will be increasing. When the Minister is replying he might give us an indication that not only will £200,000 be made available in subsequent years but an increasing amount, as this will be recurring every year.

I would like to ask the Minister about the order which has been made. Article 4 is a general provision enabling the corporation, county council and Minister to take action to establish the county borough. I presume that anything the Minister will direct will be done between now and 1 January 1986. If the Minister is to direct the council to do something after 1 January we would like to know the nature of the directive. We would not like to have the local authorities in Galway different from other local authorities. Perhaps the Minister could answer that when he is replying. Articles 5 and 6 refer to the services which the county council will continue to provide for a period. I believe there should not be duplication of the major services, for example the fire and hydro services. The country's resources are scarce enough and I would like to see the sharing of those services continued. However, if the corporation wish to terminate the agreement it can be done on an agreed basis or after giving five years notice. We would like to have the services shared to avoid duplication.

The provisions relating to the splitting up of the various statutory demands is important, and I welcome what the Minister has said in the House. As Deputy Molloy said, we in Galway have very large statutory demands and the statutory demand to the Western Health Board will amount to £2.8 million, including arrears. We are very concerned by the way these arrears have built up and the way this amount has been calculated down through the years. Galway County Council are paying 75 per cent of the cost of supplementary welfare to the Western Health Board. This compares very unfavourably with other health boards. We understand that these arrears will be dealt with over a five year period, but if we have to pay back arrears to the Government on the basis of 75 per cent we are going to be treated in a very unfavourable way. I hope the Minister will look at this.

As I understand the provisions for the financial adjustments between both authorities, the county council will be getting £200,000 and will be looking to the corporation for the balance of £223,000. We shall be discussing this, the extension of the boundary and the financial implications with the corporation over the next number of weeks. We had agreement between the former county council and corporation on the actual boundary extension of the city. I hope we can reach agreement on the outstanding matters after much tough talking. Some members of the present corporation were members of the former Galway County Council and they are well aware of the financial problems.

I welcome what the Minister has done in article 8 of the order concerning the excessive charges falling on Ballinasloe Urban District Council. If this provision was not in the order, the county council demand on Ballinasloe could have increased by as much as 60 per cent. Unless we got the £200,000 from the Minister the county council burden would have been further increased by the amount of money provided to Ballinasloe. The Ballinasloe problem will come up when we are discussing the boundary extension and it will have to be recalculated. As a county councillor from the Ballinasloe area, I am glad that this provision has been made.

As Chairman of Galway County Council I would like to welcome the Minister to County Galway on 1 January. He will be most welcome in the city and county. The case for Galway will be put more ably by all my colleagues. Deputy Molloy is in the privileged position of being a member of both the county council and the corporation and it is no wonder we have reached an amicable arrangement. I hope the council and the corporation will be able to resolve the outstanding problems. The negotiating team are working on those problems but at the end of the day the Minister has the power in this order to make the final decision.

Mr. N. Treacy

As a rural Deputy I congratulate my urban colleagues and the people of Galway city on the new status they have attained. I wish to thank the Minister and the Government for recognising the development and the historical contribution it has made to Ireland over the years. I also thank the Minister for recognising and acting on some of the recommendations made by the deputation vis-à-vis the difficulty being encountered by both Galway Corporation and the new borough council and the county council. The agreement which has been hammered out between the two authorities is a unique and historic one in that two statutory bodies in the west have got together and agreed to the division of the area. We hope they can agree to the financial constraints which will be placed on them. The Minister recognises that Galway County Council sacrificed their greatest revenue base in allowing the industrial estate in the eastern periphery of the city to become part of the borough council.

I welcome the contribution by the Department of £200,000 to offset the shortfall of £423,000 to the county council. I trust that this level of contribution will be continued yearly on a pro rata basis in order to ensure that the people of rural Galway will not be denied any of the services that have been available to them up to now.

Ballinasloe is one of the areas that I represent in this House so I am very pleased to note the provision in the order which will ensure that Ballinasloe Urban District Council and the people of the area will not be victims of the extra charge the council will have to carry. However, it appears that article 8 ensures only that there will be a pro rata increase, in the context of the county charges generally, within the Ballinasloe urban area following the change of status. It is obvious that there will be a pro rata increase in the Ballinasloe area. That is all the people of Ballinasloe could be expected to carry but this will mean that the county council will have to make up a major shortfall. I am asking the Minister to reconsider this aspect.

The fact that the two authorities have come together and reached an amicable settlement in respect of many matters augurs well for their present negotiations being brought to a satisfactory conclusion. Perhaps this development could be used as a blueprint for the Minister to restructure the whole area of local authority financing. Perhaps he would institute a critical examination of this area in the interest of bringing forward solutions to the problems and especially matters such as statutory demands being made on local authorities. When we are giving new status to the city the Minister might use the opportunity to deal with these problems vis-à-vis the various levies, such as the AnCO levy, the ACOT levy, the arterial drainage system and the matter of the maintenance of courthouses. In each of these cases functions are being undertaken for statutory State bodies but in respect of each function the county council and the corporation must make major contributions. We should ensure that local authorities would not be impeded in providing a proper standard of service for the people but the State should carry its total burden in respect of those bodies that are working to the order of and for the State. That is why I urge the Minister to put an addendum to the order to the effect that he would consider and examine the future financing of Galway Corporation and county council with a view to removing these statutory demands from them. This could provide the basis of a blueprint for local government financing and reorganisation in the coming few years.

In the Western Health Board area a contribution at the rate of almost 76 per cent is being made by Galway Corporation and county council in respect of supplementary welfare. This represents a rate of between 20 and 50 per cent more than the contribution of other local authorities in other health board areas and is putting severe pressure on local authorities in the west.

I congratulate Galway city on maintaining this status. Galway is a historic and especially beautiful city. I trust that the county council and the corporation will continue to work in harmony in the interests of the people of the west generally and of Galway city and county particularly.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

Ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil as ucht deis a bheith agam labhairt ar ghnó chomh tábhachtach leis seo sa Teach. Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an athrú stádais do chomhairle Bardas na Gaillimhe agus buíochas a ghlacadh leis an Rialtas as ucht é sin a chur ar fáil dúinn; agus freisin as ucht cuidiú le Comhairle Chontae na Gaillimhe agus le bardas na cathrach leathnú na cathrach a thabhairt chun cinn. Cuireann sé sin cathair na Gaillimhe anois ar chomhstádas le cathracha móra eile na tíre, Baile Átha Cliath, Corcaigh, Luimneach agus Port Láirge. Mar a dúirt an Teachta Molloy, is ócáid speisialta é mar go bhfuil réimse maith Ghaeltachta anois laistigh le theorainn na cathrach nua. Fáiltimid roimhe sin agus creidimid gur chun sochair don chathair agus don chontae a rachfaidh sé sin. I thank the Government and particularly the Minister, who tells us that he is three-quarters a Galwayman, for their announcement of the change of status of Galway from a corporation to a county borough area and for their swift implementation of the extension that was agreed so amicably between the elected members and the officials of both authorities. As one who was not an elected member of either body up to June last I wish to compliment the Mayor, the chairman of the county council, the elected members and the management and staff who worked so hard to bring about this agreement. They deserve our congratulations and our deep appreciation of the many hours they worked to ensure that agreement was reached on an amicable basis.

We in the corporation appreciate the revenue lost to the county council, but I would not like anyone to take from that that we are getting a present of £420,000 from the council to do with as we wish. It should be appreciated that in the area that is under county council status up to now, but which will have borough status after 1 January, there will be a tremendous financial burden on the corporation to ensure that the services available now in their area will be extended to the other area and that the level of the services — for example, public lighting, refuse collection, footpaths and so on, will be increased.

We are very anxious to hear what the Minister has to say and consequently I will move to the order. In article 5 of the Schedule, which deals with the provisions of the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945, the Minister proposes to hold at the 1985 percentage level the borough council contribution in respect of drainage. We are anxious that the same criteria would be adopted in respect of article 5 on page 3 because, after the change in the status of the county council, if the council decide to expand services in the county — for example, fire or library services — the corporation would still have to pay the high percentage of the cost without there being any reference to them. The borough needs to have control, but they are anxious that the corporation, in terms of future expenditure, would cost the services and pay their own share. In other words, I am agreeing to the amendment suggested by Deputy Molloy, which is that any new works or improvements to existing works or services after the appointed day would commence only with the agreement of the borough council. That is important. Though article 6 provides that the corporation can at any time in the future agree with the county council to discontinue any shared arrangements that might be entered into now, the notice must be served and the county council will be given five years to make their own adjustments on services. While we have a manager who is common to both authorities and while there has been tremendous co-operation between the elected members of both bodies, we should envisage a future where there might be separate managers in both cases and where perhaps elected members would not be as responsible or as co-operative as they are now and where perhaps the council might take unfair advantage of that five years notice to decide to expand a service out in the county. As it stands at the moment the corporation will be left paying a high percentage cost. That should not be done without the agreement of the corporation. If possible we want that sort of amendment inserted not just in article 5.2 but at any place in the order where reference is made to article 5.2

We are thankful for the additional grant allocation of £200,000 which the Minister announced in the Seanad last week and in the Dáil today, as an adjustment in 1986 because of this change of status to the county council. We would like to ensure that there is a very specific commitment by the Minister, if possible written into the order, that that would be done over a period of years to allow for a smooth readjustment. Like the other Deputies, I assure the Minister of a warm welcome on his official visit to Galway borough on 1 January 1986, as a Galwegian. Maybe we could say that Santa Claus came early to Galway city, though we are not quite happy that he filled the stockings as much as we would have liked. Perhaps he might make some adjustments at a later stage.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. Kavanagh)

This has been a very constructive debate in which a general welcome has been given to what the Government have been endeavouring to achieve for Galway in raising it to the status of a county borough which reflects the importance of Galway city as the capital of the west. I thank all Deputies who have spoken so generously about the initiative that has been taken. It is only natural on these occasions, even with what has been achieved, that Deputies would say that more should have been done in certain areas. However, the tenor of today's debate was one of satisfaction generally. There were a number of queries on how the disengagement will take place. I hope that the goodwill that has been the hallmark of this debate at local authority level will continue in the disengagement of services over the designated period.

Deputy Molloy and many others are concerned that the corporation pursuant to article 5.2 of the draft order should not be required to make a contribution to the new services or works undertaken by the county council in the county area, subsequent to the appointed day. They were concerned that the county council would, for instance, in respect of fire services, embark on the construction of fire stations in the county to which the corporation pursuant to article 5.2 would have to pay a contribution. That is very unlikely. Under article 5.2 the corporation will have to pay the county council for the service which the county council provides in the area of the county borough. Payment will be determined on the basis of what the corporation would have paid for the service, had the county borough not been established. However, the two local authorities will not be tied to this formula. They will be able under article 5.3 to agree to different terms and conditions for the provision of the services by the county council. In the event of the county council embarking on a major programme of construction of fire stations, for example, in the county, it would be open to both authorities to agree on different terms under this subarticle. This is extremely unlikely and it will not happen in the circumstances. My whole approach to the upgrading of Galway to county borough status has been to assume that both authorities will operate on the basis of goodwill and common sense.

I would be very reluctant to modify the draft order in any way which might suggest that goodwill and common sense will not prevail. To do so would be tantamount to insulting one or other local authority and would call into question the goodwill which has existed up to now. I am happy to argue on behalf of the county council that they will continue to act reasonably and responsibly and that they are unlikely to launch a major programme of expenditure designed to steal an advantage on the county borough. In the event that genuine changes of expenditure levels arise subsequent to the appointed day, I am satisfied that the county council will be willing to negotiate the terms under article 5.3 from the point of view of the Minister for the Environment who is charged with the responsibility for overseeing the implementation of the new status for the city and who must therefore act in a way which is fair to both authorities. This is the sensible approach.

Deputies will appreciate that the lead in time for undertaking a major expansion programme in any service area is considerable having regard to the necessary planning, site acquisition and so on. In many cases new projects would be subject to sanction by my Department who would have to take account of the needs and concerns of both authorities. If at the end of the day and against all reasonable expectations a major problem were to arise, it would be open to me to amend the present order to deal with the situation. I have every confidence that this will not arise.

Deputy Molloy expressed some concern about Galway's liability in respect of supplementary welfare. As the Deputy is aware, the local authorities are being relieved of the obligation to contribute towards this scheme and he can rest assured that in deciding on the rate support grant allocation for the year, I will be going a long way towards correcting the anomalies to which Deputy Molloy referred regarding the allocations and I will take account of the concerns expressed by the Deputy——

Mr. Molloy

Thank you very much.

Mr. Kavanagh

——even though this will mean that the counties in the east will have to bear some of that adjustment.

Mr. Molloy

They are a little better off than we are, Minister.

Mr. Kavanagh

I would not say that, around my part of the world. Deputy Coogan raised a point in relation to Ministerial involvement in the disengagement of some of the services. The Deputy suggested that a provision for ministerial involvement be included in article 6 to deal with the situation where the corporation and the county council failed to agree the terms and conditions in relation to services in respect of which the corporation serve notice of their intention to provide a service themselves. I cannot accept a need for ministerial involvement. Experience of the co-operation and goodwill that exists between the corporation and the county council suggests that it will be possible for them to agree an operative date for the transfer of any service which the corporation wish to provide and that they will also be able to agree appropriate terms and conditions in relation to any such service. In the unlikely event of the two authorities being unable to agree on the operative date, it is likely that they will agree terms and conditions in relation to the service in question because it would be in the best interests of both of them to do so. This is because the corporation would have to build up their capability in relation to the services in question while the county council would correspondingly have to scale down their capability. The inescapable logic is that both authorities would come to a mutually beneficial understanding. Even if it were to happen that the corporation and the county council could not agree on the operative date or on the terms and conditions, article 6 would cater adequately for such a situation. The corporation would not take over responsibility for the relevant service until five years after giving notice to the county council. That period would give the two authorities adequate time in which to adjust themselves to the new arrangements and effect all the necessary changes for that purpose.

Even in such a case, therefore, I would not accept that there is a need to provide for a Minister to adjudicate on terms and conditions. However, I should say that I foresee the possibility of such a situation arising as a very remote one. I have every confidence that all matters relating to the provision of services will be resolved locally. I appreciate the Deputy's constructive concern to ensure that eventualities are adequately catered for in the order. Article 6 makes comprehensive provision for the taking over of the services in the city by the corporation. I do not consider there is any need for ministerial involvement in the matter, particularly in view of the goodwill and good sense demonstrated by the corporation and county council up to now.

Therefore I would request that the Deputy withdraw his amendment. As I said earlier, it would be possible to amend the order at a later stage should any unforeseen problems arise. I would have no hesitation in doing so should difficulties arise in the operation of the disengagement.

Deputies Kitt, Geoghegan-Quinn and others asked about statutory demands. At present the county council are liable for the demands of the Office of Public Works in respect of the maintenance of drainage works which have been carried out over the last century. The financing of these demands has been a county at large charge and accordingly the borough has been liable for a proportion of those demands. Obviously it would be grossly unfair to the county council if the county borough did not continue to make a contribution towards these liabilities which have grown up over the last century. Therefore what the order proposes is that separate demands would be served on the county council and on the county borough by the Office of Public Works and that the county borough should continue to meet the same proportion in respect of which it would have been liable had it remained a borough. I should add that this arrangement will apply only in respect of works carried out prior to 1 January. In respect of works carried out after that date the full liability will fall to be met by the authority in whose areas the works are located.

Regarding the arrears of statutory demands, I should say that substantial arrears have grown up in respect of drainage demands and demands of the Western Health Board in respect of supplementary welfare going back a number of years. Here the order proposes that the county borough should continue to be liable for a proportion of such arrears on the same basis as if it had remained a borough. Local authorities are liable for demands for a wide variety of bodies in respect of services provided. Most of these demands are county at large charges and, on the establishment of the county borough, such demands will in the future be served separately on the county council and the county borough corporation by the bodies concerned. Examples of such demands would include those from the Local Appointments Commission, the Computer Services Board and the Local Government Staff Negotiations Board.

Mr. Molloy

This question has to be put at 5.15 p.m. We are very anxious to get a response in regard to the continuing subvention for 1987, 1988 and 1989. The £200,000 for 1986 is all right but what happens after that?

Mr. Kavanagh

I should say to the Deputies who are concerned about this that, whereas the figure of £200,000 does not appear in the order itself, I am prepared to give the House an assurance that I will continue to consider this very favourably in subsequent years. I can give the House that categoric assurance.

Mr. Molloy

Can we take it from what the Minister is saying that there will be a contribution in subsequent years?

Mr. Kavanagh

Yes, indeed.

Mr. Kitt

Will it be an increasing contribution?

Mr. Kavanagh

I said I will consider that. When Deputies see my generosity from the division of the rates support grant they may feel they will not need any more in subsequent years.

Mr. Molloy

We may not have a half Galway man the next time.

Mr. Kavanagh

That is what I would be afraid of, that we might have somebody from over there who did not like you as much as I do. I can give the House an assurance that the continuing subvention will be definitely considered for subsequent years.

Mr. Molloy

I thank the Minister.

Mr. Kavanagh

I thank Deputies for their response to this debate. I can assure them that I am looking forward to joining them in Galway on 1 January in their celebrations.

Question put and agreed to.