Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 9 May 1991

Vol. 408 No. 2

Local Government Bill, 1991: Second Stage (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Flynn, on Tuesday, 7 May 1991:
That the Bill be now read a Second Time.
Debate resumed on the following amendment:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
"having regard to:
the clear intention of the Government to provide by law for the gerrymandering of electoral areas in the County Boroughs of Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Waterford and Galway; and
the undemocratic and incompetent arrangements proposed by the Government for the debating of the Bill; and
the failure of the Bill to deal effectively with the crisis in local services, including housing, roads, and local financing;
Dáil Éireann declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill.".
—(Deputy Howlin.)

Before the debate was adjourned last night, I was referring to section 6 which deals with the promotion of the interests of local communities and which will give statutory effect to what many local authorities have been doing. Some of the more progressive local authorities have already initiated many projects. I welcome the provisions which will give these measures, particularly those in relation to workshops, statutory effect. While Deputy Ferris welcomed section 6 he was worried about the amount of finance which would be made available to local authorities to carry out these works. I know from experience that very little seed capital or finance is needed to get some projects off the ground. FÁS have also played a part in this. Many sustainable jobs have been created in the small industries sector, particularly in the services area where we have been lagging for too long. Many of us have been talking for a long time about the need to develop our small industries and this section will go a long way towards doing that.

Section 49 deals with the twinning of local authority areas. Twinning arrangements have already taken place between many towns, cities and counties but, again, these had no statutory effect. Many of the more progressive local authorities have already gone down this road, which is particularly important from the point of view of tourism.

Even though it may not be a matter which should be dealt with in this Bill, I should like the system of local authority accounting to be addressed at some stage, perhaps by way of a public bodies order. This is a ludicrous and antiquated system and it is about time it was changed. I do not know how far it dates back but it bears no resemblance to present commercial reality. I am an accountant and it was three or four years before I could understand the accounting procedures used by local authorities. I am sure many members of local authorities have extreme difficulty in understanding this system. It seems to be an exercise in fooling local authority members who do not really know what is going on. County managers can do what they like with the figures because nobody really understands what they mean.

I visited England recently to look at how local authorities there operate. They use a more commercially based accounting system which we should consider adopting here. I should like to give an example of the accounting procedures used by local authorities here. The accounts in relation to materials and machinery are contained in the book of estimates which is produced at the end of the financial year. These accounts do not show what materials cost during the year. For example, items which have not been paid for, items which have been paid for in advance and items which are in stock are not taken into consideration. All machinery is supposed to be included in the revenue accounts but there are no procedures whereby local authorities can depreciate the value of machinery. This is ludicrous. They have to follow a fairly antiquated and circular route in writing off that material through the capital accounts over a period of time. This is nonsensical. We may also be shown a deficit of X number of pounds and told that it is not really a deficit. How are members of local authorities supposed to understand what is going on when they are told a deficit is not as bad as it looks because a payment from the Department of the Environment has been held up? We are told not to worry about those deficits because they are not really deficits.

The auditing of local authority accounts should be taken away from the local government auditor. As a Member said last night, it can take up to four or five years before some local authority accounts are audited. However, because of the way the system is structured at present I do not think any commercial firm would be capable of conducting an audit of local authority accounts. This system should be changed completely so that commercial firms would be in a position to carry out audits. Proper balance sheets setting out their exact position should also be produced by local authorities at the end of each year. They should give a list of their assets and liabilities in the same way as any commercial firm. This is not happening at present and such a system will have to be introduced at some stage. We should conform to the standard statements of accounting practice laid down by the various professional accounting bodies. If commercial firms have to conform to SSAPs, why do local authorities not have to do so.

I welcome section 50 which provides that a local authority shall publish an annual report. However, when we talk about an annual report we usually mean a financial annual report. Section 50 provides that a local authority shall publish a report of their activities for the preceding year. As a next step, the accounting mechanism should be reformed and incorporated in the annual report. I do not think anyone in this House would object to such a proposal. Local authority members would certainly not object to such a proposal because if this was done they would finally be able to understand the figures placed before them and county or city managers would not be able to pull the wool over their eyes, which I am sure is happening at present.

I want to be parochial in my comments about Part V which deals with the new boundary committees. This is one of the most important Parts of the Bill. Section 28 will empower the Minister to constitute new boundary committees to look at local authority boundaries. I have put down a motion on behalf of Waterford Corporation on this matter so that our city manager can start work on a submission to the Department of the Environment on a badly needed extension of the Waterford city boundary on the north side into County Kilkenny. We have been seeking this extension since 1979. I do not blame the Minister, or previous Ministers, for not granting this extension as there had been an extension on the other side into Waterford County Council. That extension was agreed between the two local authorities. If the local authorities concerned agree to the extension of a boundary, the Minister for the Environment can agree to it. As there has been no agreement in this case between the local authorities in Waterford and Kilkenny obviously the Minister for the Environment could not act. The setting up of boundary committees will mean that an independent body can look at the reasons for such an extension. I have no doubt that our case will stand up. Obviously, the Minister's hand will be strengthened if this independent body can look at the reason for an extension. If they recommend to him that something should be done it will be easier for me to accede to such a request than it as at present.

Local authority houses in Waterford are in the Kilkenny County Council area. I do not know where else that happens, except in Dublin which is unique. It is fairly ridiculous to allow that sort of situation to continue. We cannot develop our entrance to the city along the main Dublin to Waterford road as we do not have authority in that area. I am not knocking the other local authority, but their priority lies elsewhere. It would be in the interests of everybody if we were granted that extension. Section 31 of the Bill refers to the interests of effective and convenient local government. That extension of powers is what that would be. I am sure there are other areas which are crying out for extensions due to the expansion of many urban areas over the last number of years. This section will be generally welcomed.

Section 38 empowers local authorities to form advisory committees with reduced statutory functions. This would mean that Waterford County Councillors could sit down with Kilkenny County Councillors in committee, and that would perhaps advance what I am talking about here. In some areas that happens already. We have had several meetings with our counterparts in the Piltown electoral area of Kilkenny, but it is nice to see statutory effect being given to something like that. It is only common sense and it is something to be welcomed in this Bill. It will increase the spirit of co-operation between local authorities.

When local authority areas are extended compensation has to be paid. Nothing come without a price. If we or any other urban area were to extend, it would be at a price. Perhaps the Minister for the Environment would consider picking up the tab for that.

This Bill is only a start, as the Taoiseach pointed out, in shifting the real functions of the local authority from the city and county managers to the elected representatives who are the people who have to knock on the doors to be elected to local authorities. Neither the manager nor his staff have to go out knocking on doors. They are not answerable to anybody. The effort in this Bill to change that around is to be welcomed. Anyone reading the Bill will see that the words "reserved functions" pop up all over the place. This means that functions are being given back to the members of local authorities, and that is welcome. I do not have any quibble with the provision whereby Ministers or Ministers of State may not serve on local bodies. This is something that should have come in before. We were criticised because perhaps some of our Ministers or Ministers of State did not resign from local authorities and we in turn criticised the Opposition for the same thing when they were in power. Something has been done about it now and I have not heard complaints from anybody about it. Ministers and Ministers of State are busy enough without the added responsibility of serving on local authorities.

Many people are worried about the abolition of urban district councils and town commissioners. They are not to be abolished. Both the Minister and the Taoiseach made it clear that any town with an urban council, or borough corporation or a town commissioner will not lose them. Perhaps they might be extended but that would be a good thing as many of the urban areas have expanded rapidly over the last number of years and the greater part of the areas is now outside the various boundaries.

I am pleased at the advent of regional bodies. The RTOs failed before for a number of reasons, one of them being the lack of power. In these bodies the public representatives from the various local authorities will have a greater say on this occasion. They are the people who should serve on such bodies and it should lead to better co-operation between local authorities.

It is not often that I take a member of my party to task for something he said, but I have to disagree with Deputy John Browne in what he said last night. The Deputy complained about the south-eastern area. He was correct in that the south-east always seems to be forgotten. However, the Deputy said that when anything comes it comes to Waterford and that nothing comes to Wexford. I am being constantly told that Fianna Fáil are neglecting Waterford, which is the capital of the south-east, and I agree with that. We are being by-passed on many things, including decentralisation. We have been promised a decentralised office since 1979. To a large extent I blame the Opposition parties for dismantling the decentralisation programme between 1982 and 1987 but it is about time we got a decentralised office in Waterford. We do not have anything special in Waterford. They have the South Eastern Health Board in Kilkenny and they recently got the regionalised ordnance survey office. Deputy Browne seemed to have forgotten that the Environmental Protection Agency is to go to Johnstown Castle, which is in Wexford. I contend that it is Waterford that is not treated well, and not other areas in the south-east.

Section 37 which deals with devoltion of various powers and functions to committees is welcome. Public representatives are aware that at public meetings, politics being what it is, people will play to the gallery, but that much more work is done in committee away from the glare of publicity. Committees should be seriously considered by local authorities. I do not suggest that we try to hide anything, but decisions can often be hammered out more quickly in conmittee and then the decision can be conveyed afterwards. This section should be used as much as possible by the various local authorities.

Section 42 (5) is welcome. Up to now, the lord mayors of the five county borough councils were able to decide on the expenses of the mayor for a given year. They did not need the approval of the Minister for the Environment. However it would appear from a reading of section 42 that they will now need it. I contend that they should not be covered by its provisions given that this practice has been operated in a very satisfactory way up to now. It is important when a new provision relating to county council chairmen is introduced that the Minister monitor its implementation. However I am aware that he has no intention of interfering and needs to have this power in case somebody goes off the rails. As I said, I contend that lord mayors should not be covered by this provision and the legislation should be amended to take account of this.

Subsection (5) of that section reads:

In this section "the chairman", in relation to a local authority, includes, in the case of a borough, the lord mayor or the Mayor of such authority.

I think this refers to a county borough as there is no lord mayor in a borough. It appears that the subsection is flawed. Overall, I welcome the provisions relating to the payment of allowances to chairmen of local authorities.

I also welcome the proposal that county councils be given the power to confer honours. Why should they not have the same power to honour people as urban councils?

Reference has been made to section 4 motions. The provisions relating to these motions are to be welcomed. I have not heard anyone criticise them yet, but we will obviously have to wait and see how the system works. The local authority of which I am a member do not use section 4 motions but it has been suggested that it is quite easy for a member in one electoral area to put down a section 4 motion for a member of another electoral area which will not affect them. It is an eminently sensible suggestion that if a section 4 motion is to be put down that it should be put down by a member of the electoral area concerned. It has been mentioned that there have been abuses but this provision should help to eliminate them. As a result the public representative concerned will be held accountable within his own area.

The planning procedure needs to be reviewed. In England power rests with the local authority members when it comes to planning and and not with the officials. Furthermore they do not have a body like An Bord Pleanála to hear appeals. I think it was Deputy Yates who attacked that body yesterday, but I would have to agree with him that it is ridiculous that we cannot get any information from them and it is unbelievable in this day and age that it takes them so long to make a decision. That matter needs to be looked at.

The provisions relating to the tenure of office of city and county managers — they will now only be able to serve for seven years — are eminently sensible and are in line with the provisions relating to tenure of office of departmental secretaries. I am of the opinion that a city manager should be appointed half way through the life of a council and should seek re-appointment half way through the life of the following council and that the membership should have a say in the matter. Since it is possible that a city or county manager may not perform or get on with the elected members or do what they want, perhaps they should have the power to remove him from office. However, I am still happy with the provisions in the Bill under which the matter will go before the Local Appointments Commission. The provisions of this section will not affect anyone in office at present and I do not think they should affect any good city or county manager in the future. If they do their job properly they will be re-appointed.

In conclusion, this is eminently sensible legislation. I wish to emphasise once more that it is the first step in reforming local government. It is a good start and I look forward to further legislation to further reform local authorities.

As a member of a local authority for the past 17 years — I have served on both Dublin City Council and Dublin County Council during that period — I welcome any legislation which will bring local government closer to the people. Life is changing fast and for the better. Yesterday's legislation will not cater for today's needs. Legislation should be revised regularly to cater for the needs of a rapidly changing society in the area of local government.

Most of the changes proposed in the Bill were initiated by Fine Gael when in Government prior to the 1985 local elections. It was they who proposed that three new local authorities be established within the Dublin County Council area. The areas proposed were Dublin-Belgard, Dublin-Fingal and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown. I represent the Fingal area. However, since 1985 the members for the Fingal area have acted only as a committee within the 78 member Dublin County Council making it the second largest body in the country next to Dáil Éireann and even larger than the Seanad.

Since 1985 there has been no reform of Dublin County Council. The committee set up within the council, called the local government reorganisation and monitoring committee, have held no meetings since the elections to the council in 1985. On occasion the efforts to have council business carried out were farcical. I fully support the establishment of the three local authorities, which, if given the necessary powers and finance, would certainly bring local government closer to the people.

The proposed Fingal council would consist of 24 members and represent an area from Balbriggan to Howth, one of the fastest growing areas in western Europe. Therefore, it has special needs. It is a coastal area with many fine beaches and it at present enjoys an excellent environment. Portmarnock strand has received the European Community blue flag award for clean water on many occasions. However, it is increasingly coming under pressure from the effluent entering Dublin Bay from the nose of Howth, which has become an open sewer. The European Community recently announced that such untreated sewage schemes must have a treatment works established before the end of the decade. This is a very welcome development. I notice that good news and announcements of this kind are usually made by the Minister for the Environment or the Minister of State at that Department before the local councils have even been consulted on such matters. What I am saying is that the Minister or Minister of State is very happy to give the good news but when bad news has to be delivered this is left to local councillors. I hope the Bill will enable local authorities to deal direct with the European Community when such works are proposed without the need to contact the Department of the Environment.

Local government reform is about granting more powers to local authorities and reducing bureaucratic red tape imposed by the Department of the Environment. There are some excellent areas of scenic beauty in the Dublin-Fingal electoral area, including the Hill of Howth and its environs which is constantly under threat from developers. If this is allowed to continue, in a very short time Howth and its environs will become more like Hong Kong.

Last Sunday a voluntary group anxious to preserve this excellent amenity organised a demonstration to highlight the rape of each green open space in the area. The Minister of State, Deputy Harney, attended and was made welcome by the locals. Given her presence they felt they had some support from the Department of the Environment. A large number of people turned up to show their displeasure at the delay in granting a special amenity area order for Howth. I have on several occasions here in the Dáil and on Dublin County Council requested that such an order be proceeded with as soon as possible so that we may preserve this scenic and green open space which is in danger of being gobbled up by creeping development. Starting at Sutton Cross and continuing over the Hill of Howth right down to Howth Village, this area has been under threat from developers. Every place where a house could be erected is put before Dublin County Council for planning permission. Will this legislation allow for a more meaningful process or a quick response to granting special amenity orders where such urgent situations arise? Will the Bill provide the necessary finance? Will it enable councils such as Dublin-Fingal to put in place work schemes to carry out the necessary and tedious work involved in preparing such order? I understand this is the reason the present required amenity area order is delayed. The Department of the Environment acted swiftly in granting the Liffey area order and I feel it was that Department who initiated that. I hope this legislation will allow for similar swift action within local councils.

Will this legislation allow the Dublin-Fingal Committee to establish their headquarters within their own boundary? I note it will allow for the appointment of their own manager and staff. How soon will that happen? That provision is most welcome because Dublin-Fingal Council have been acting as a committee over the years. They have not had their own staff. They have to report back to the full council, and people who are elected for the Dún Laoghaire area make decisions which affect people in Howth. That is wrong and the sooner it is ended the better.

Local authorities should be locally focused. Areas like Dublin-Fingal should have their own headquarters established in an easily accessible place. As I said, I support fully the establishment of the Dublin-Fingal Committee within Dublin County Council. When that committee are established we would like to see them having their own headquarters and for this I suggest somewhere like Swords. It will cost some money to achieve this, but the headquarters should be put in place where people can get to local government and local government is seen to be near to them. People need a local council office near them to process local matters such as planning applications which affect their areas, and housing list and housing grant applications. However, local offices should cater for a much greater range of services such as taxing motor vehicles and processing driving licence applications. I am sure many motor vehicles go untaxed because of the problem of getting to the motor taxation office where it is situated at present. I have called on several occasions for the establishment of local offices even in shopping centres where people can tax their motor vehicles. This would be a most welcome development.

Housing is a major part of any local authority's activities and I cannot let this opportunity pass without bringing to the Minister's attention the deplorable state of the housing list within Dublin Corporation and Dublin County Council. Virtually no houses have been constructed in the last three years and housing list applications have reached crisis proportions. In the city and county we are back to the old days of mass overcrowding, unhealthy living conditions and two or three families in the one household. Will this Bill provide money to enable councils to get rid of the atrocious waiting lists?

Because local government reform has not progressed over the last four or five years infrastructure in the council has deteriorated seriously. A member of the Dublin-Fingal Committee or Dublin County Council has about six questions down to the county manager on each month's agenda. While the manager can give a sympathetic reply to any query raised, he must add that there is no finance available to carry out urgent works. I instanced questions I put to him about the break up of roadways and pathways in the Baldoyle-Howth-Sutton area. No proper resurfacing or reinstatement has taken place there in the last five years.

On the environment side, the marvellous walks and rights-of-way on the Hill of Howth are overgrown and impossible to use. Thus a very valuable tourist amenity is ruined. The Dublin county manager has made several efforts to put in place schemes for the necessary work in this regard, but he has failed so far this year to get approval from the Department of Labour. Annual cleaning up schemes for beaches such as the Burrow Beach in Sutton, Dollymount Strand and other beaches in the area and the Baldoyle estuary have not been carried out at all in the last few years. This is deplorable. The development of the Baldoyle nature reserve has not progressed because of lack of finance. I know the Department of the Marine have a say in that and it is not fair to blame the council because the work has not progressed so far, but I ask the Minister to use his good offices to have this excellent amenity upgraded and to provide the proper signs and pathways and make it more accessible to people who like to come and see the wonderful wildlife which over-winters there. I am sure the Minister is aware that this estuary, like Rogerstown estuary, has been twinned. The Baldoyle estuary has been twinned with an estuary in the Polar Bear Pass and it is a vital link in the food chain of migratory birds who over-winter in the Baldoyle estuary. I ask the Minister to use his good offices and put the excellent amenities there on the map by providing proper signs and pathways.

Another area local councils must address is vandalism and teenage drinking in parks and open spaces. This has been highlighted recently in Grange Park, Raheny, where gangs of youths are congregating in open spaces, terrorising households with house breaking and handbag snatching to finance their drinking parties. The local gardai and local authorities are powerless to do anything about this because no proper deterrent is available to them. The courts can only impose fines of £2 on conviction. I have asked the Minister for Justice to impose a fine in the region of £200. This problem is rampant throughout Dublin city and county. The Minister should ensure within this legislation that powers are available to local authorities to provide their own security. Local authorities should have powers to provide even their own policing of parks and open spaces where real problems arise.

Another area I wish to address is the much publicised section 4 motion procedure used by councillors to instruct a county manager to carry out developments against his advice. Dublin County Council's agenda is crammed each month with section 4 motions most of which call for the rezoning of land, in some cases allowing for the building of 400 or 500 houses. These motions cause serious division in local communities. On the one hand there is the developer whose only interest is to build houses, usually against the wishes of the local community and against advice from planners.

Signed by Fine Gael.

I have never signed a section 4 motion myself for any planning permission for any developer.

Signed by Fine Gael.

I have been six years on Dublin County Council and I have never signed a section 4 motion.

I did not say the Deputy did.

The Minister can check that out. I know members of his own party have done so.

And members of Fine Gael.

I will not do so and I have not done so. I am talking about myself. Local residents must then campaign against such developments, mostly without proper back-up and they must raise funds in order to engage the services of a planner and lobby their local councillors to vote against such a proposal. On most applications councillors are put under seige by the developer and residents and often have to run the gauntlet when entering Dublin County Council meetings to avoid unwelcome approaches from developers and local community groups who in general do not come from one's own constituency. I suppose that point is worth making. Many of the section 4 motions which are put down at Dublin County Council level come from councillors who do not represent the area in question. This is deplorable and should be stopped. I am not campaigning for the abolition of section 4 motions. Councillors need this power in relation to matters other than planning and I welcome the new arrangements proposed in the Bill. However, I would suggest that section 4 motions concerning planning and development matters be abolished. These matters should be left to the experts, the architects, town planners and others employed by the council who are qualified in the area. The abuse of section 4 has led to much undesirable development within the Dublin County Council area. The proper infrastructure for these developments does not exist and the manager is forced to seek the necessary money. This is a principal reason for the number of unfinished estates in the Dublin Corporation and Dublin County Council areas. If planning proceeded in the proper way there would not be unfinished estates.

Will the Minister assure the House that each of the three new councils within the Dublin County Council area will have adequate staff and finance? Have the personnel in Dublin County Council been consulted or have negotiations taken place with their unions?

This Bill is flawed. The reintroduction of the majority vote can lead to an abuse of democracy. If the majority vote were to apply in Dublin County Council or the proposed councils and committees, Fianna Fáil would have a majority on the committees and other parties would be left without any say. This is an abuse of democracy.

The Lord Mayor of Dublin, Michael Donnelly, is doing an excellent job. I served with him as a member of Dublin Corporation for many happy years. He has proposed that the office of Lord Mayor should be filled by direct election and I would support that proposal. The role is mainly ceremonial and I believe the Lord Mayor should have more powers. That system works well in the United States. I would not be against directly electing Chairpersons of Dublin County Council or the three proposed new councils. Chairpersons, whether directly elected or appointed under the existing system, should be paid a proper salary and given proper back-up services. It would be well worth the money and local government generally would benefit.

I would remind the House that the Government proposed that an all-party committee should be set up to consider the question of local government reform and that the principal Opposition party refused to participate. Their rather lame excuse was that the terms of reference did not include the funding of local authorities. They should have realised the importance of deciding in the first place on the broad structures which are desirable and have sought to make significant progress in that area. The experience of our sister island in trying to find a workable replacement for the heated poll tax should make it obvious that it would be foolish to postpone reform until the extremely difficult problem of local revenue can be solved.

The Government were determined before embarking on this legislation to use the democratic process to the limit. In the absence of a proposed all-party committee, the Taoiseach took the initiative in establishing a special committee of the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party, whose terms of reference provided that they should make an important input to the Government's deliberations on local government reorganisation and reform. I had the honour to act as chairman of this committee and we were grateful to have the skilful assistance of Dr. Martin Mansergh who acted as our secretary. The Committee consisted of 14 Deputies and Senators, all of whom had considerable experience of local government. We met on 18 occasions during the latter half of last year and I must pay tribute to the members for the manner in which they performed their task, sometimes at general personal inconvenience, especially during the summer recess of the Dáil.

In preparing our recommendations we carefully studied many reports issued during the past 20 years. We also invited submissions from Fianna Fáil councillors throughout the country. The response was most heartening and valuable. We made a working visit to England to study their system and their experience of reforms implemented over the years. Our final report was submitted to the Taoiseach and the Minister for the Environment on 5 December last and to our parliamentary party a week later. Backbenchers are often preceived by the general public as merely voting fodder in these Houses. The experience of this and other committees in the recent past shows that the Government believe in involving as many Members as possible in the formulation of legislation.

A significant number of our proposals have been incorporated in this Bill. We wanted to cut out unnecessary bureaucracy which involves referring virtually every significant decision to Dublin for approval. The Bill enables the Minister to devolve a whole range of functions and powers to local authorities by provisional order, to be confirmed by the Oireachtas. The Opposition have made a deal of noise about the Minister giving himself wide-ranging powers. He is making sure that reform takes place progressively as it is seen to be desirable. To expect details of every item to be listed at this stage is less than realistic. Fianna Fáil Members will be as vigilant as any in ensuring that these powers are devolved without unreasonable delay. I am confident that the Minister will not require to be pushed in this respect.

We urge the re-establishment of committees to deal with such matters as health, agriculture and education. Part VI of the Bill provides for the establishment of such committees, either in an advisory capacity or with designated functions. This is a welcome development which has been called for by many public representatives and political parties.

We recommended that managers, and other staff, be more accountable to the councils and that the system adopted for departmental secretaries should apply to managers. Section 47 prescribes a maximum term of office for future city and county managers. The day is gone when people could sign on and expect to be employed for 40 years. We are all accountable. Public representatives are accountable on 27 June next when we go before the people. In some parts of the country there has been much criticism of the attitude of management to public representatives. We do not have that problem in Cork where we have had excellent relations with our city manager and his predecessors. I envisage that this part of the legislation will help to develop greater liaison, greater co-operation and greater accountability in this area.

We stress the importance of making the planning process more accountable rather than leaving all the important decisions in this area to the experts. To say that planning should be left entirely to the experts is like saying that defence policy should be left to the generals. We acknowledge that the role of elected members needs to be the subject of review, but we urge that in the meantime the rules regarding section 4 motions must be tightened so that the signatories are properly accountable to the people affected. Section 44 provides for changes in section 4 motions which will ensure they are not brought into disrepute. Similarly, section 45 provides that three-quarters of the total membership must vote in favour of material contravention of a development plan as will be the case with section 4 motions.

In my 12 years as a member of Cork Corporation, section 4 motions were moved on only three occasions. This is a good record of co-operation with both management and the council. Unfortunately the experience of the committee was that this was not the situation in many parts of the country where section 4 motions were used weekly. This is unsatisfactory because today we want value for money, greater efficiency and up-dating local government. This part of the legislation will be of immense assistance to councillors and management and I hope it will eliminate many of the unnecessary section 4 motions being put down in various parts of the country, but this may be directed to the attitude of the manager. I hope as a result of what the Minister is endeavouring to achieve it will eliminate that problem.

We recommended the setting up of regional authorities in order that the roles of county councils and county borough corporations could be co-ordinated in certain areas of operation. Section 43 provides for the setting up of eight regional authorities based on the areas at present applying to health boards. Some people were concerned that these authorities would be imposed on the councils. The Minister makes it clear that this is not the case.

Regional authorities can have an important role in future regional planning and can have a direct role in the area of EC funding. This is a welcome development. It is reasonable that public representatives at local level would be concerned that, in the event of another tier of local government, their power would be eroded. I can assure them this is a progressive step. We have designated regions for EC Structural Funds, such as tourism, transport and many other areas.

I should like to refer to Cork and Kerry where we have a common interest; one's interest does not end at the boundary of one's county. This will be an ideal opportunity for public representatives to become involved in a broader sense and make a greater contribution to the region they represent.

These are some of the many recommendations the Minister has taken on board from our report. The fact that he did not refer to the report merely underlines the shyness and modesty of our party. With the exception of the Labour Party, we were the only party that made any submissions in this area. I would like to deal at length with many other aspects of the Bill but I do not want to use up the valuable time the Opposition have claimed is so urgently needed to debate the Bill. However, there are a few other points I would like to make.

Already, there has been some controversy concerning the powers the Minister has in regard to the adjustment of electoral area boundaries. Perhaps the Minister would consider an amendment to section 32 which states: "The Minister may request a boundary committee — (a) to prepare a report under section 33 with respect to the boundary of any local electoral area ..." The Minister should be obliged to have the views of the boundary committee on the adjustment of local electoral area boundaries before a decision is made. Such a change would be in keeping with the general approach of having boundaries the subject of a report from the boundary committee. I appreciate that it may be onerous for the committee to have to examine all possible changes in local area boundaries. It may well be appropriate that the committee be consulted where the views of the local authority concerned are not acceptable to the Minister. In these cases the Minister may refer the matter to the boundary committee for report.

The council's primary functions will continue to be in the areas of maintaining the basic fabric and the basic services for cities and counties for example, roads, parks, libraries, housing, sanitary services and so on. However, in today's world there is a greater need for the local authorities to become involved in economic development to help markets to promote their own areas and to encourage the development of tourism. These are all areas of activity which are extremely important. I see the need for this type of involvement in my own area of Cork.

Cork Corporation have already taken on board the task of encouraging job creation in the Mayfield area of Cork and through the use of an innovative and imaginative approach have managed to bring about the construction of a number of advance factories and more will follow. It is important that this type of approach be followed more fully since we cannot rely totally on economic forces to create employment in areas of greatest need. Local authorities are the best judges of the real needs of their areas. The broadening of the legal powers of local authorities to help the development of their own areas is a very important element in the Bill.

The Bill provides the legal framework necessary for the achievement of many of the objectives all Members wish to see. The success of the Government's efforts in this regard will depend on the political will to see them through eventually and the willingness of the central Government machine to be prepared to devolve downwards the functions of local areas which can be properly carried out at local level.

Serious anomalies arise in the financing of local government. Cities such as Cork find that because boundaries are so restricted there is very little buoyancy in terms of revenue generation. Major developments tend to take place in green field sites outside cities. The result is that cities find that their rate base is located outside their boundary while at the same time the need to provide services is greater. In Cork our experience has been that groups such as the homeless tend to go to cities thereby putting greater demands on cities.

I call on the Minister to look at the area of greater equalisation of resources. I regret that people have been jailed for non-payment of service charges. Those people are in jail because of legislation brought into this House by the then Minister for the Environment, Deputy Spring, in July 1983, ably assisted by the main Opposition party, Fine Gael. There has been much public comment and protest regarding this matter. I respect the right of any individual to protest on any issue but I abhor the attitude of The Workers' Party in encouraging people not to pay their service charges and taking part in protests.

As a political party The Workers' Party have the opportunity to express their views in this Chamber and in the council chamber in Cork city but they are working against the system from within, as identified in a document by one of their Dublin members, which I have in my possession. This is irresponsible. While there is a problem which we must try to resolve, we must not run away from the central point, as certain politicians in Cork have endeavoured to do, that is, that legislation to introduce service charges was passed in this House in July 1983. I spoke during the debate in June 1983 and I advised the Tánaiste on that occasion that service charges would develop into a much greater problem. Unfortunately I was right.

We can all talk about promises. People can refer to the promises made by Fianna Fáil. However we could also talk about the promise to pay £9.50 a week to a housewife who stayed at home but which was never adhered to, for good economic reason. I find a direct conflict in the contributions made by some Members yesterday when they referred to what Fianna Fáil did. They acknowledged that they had to impose charges in 1983 because of the state of the country's finances but the reason the charges have not been removed is because of the drastic position of the State's finances. When we took office, the national debt had been doubled, inflation was rampant and interest rates were high. That was the legacy we inherited from the people on the Opposition benches. Let the people, particularly those who are making great political play of this issue locally, take note.

I am stating this morning that we have a problem but we must find a solution to it. As I understand it some of the political parties and certainly the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party believe we should have some form of local taxation. We should sit down and discuss the problem and come up with a solution. I have already called on the Minister to ensure that there is a greater equalisation of resources at local level. The finger has been pointed at Dublin. I do not wish to refer in particular to Dublin but I have tried to explain to the people of Cork that the rates support grant was cut in Dublin, the same as everywhere else but because of their wide commercial base, they were able to offset the imposition of domestic service charges against developmental charges in commercial and other areas. In Cork, we have a very small commercial base and we need greater assistance. If Dublin has advantages over poorer parts of the country we must find some way of correcting this anomaly and find some other way in the rates support grants to assist areas in the country that are in greater need.

I was surprised yesterday to hear Deputy Mitchell making a personal attack on the Minister. Deputy Mitchell spent two terms, almost seven years, on this side of the House during the eighties. What will he be remembered for? He spoke about people, living just a short distance from the Minister's office in the Custom House and having no bathroom facilities but he did not say what he did when he was in Government. Let me ask how many bathrooms he put into houses. He did not say that. What assistance did the Fine Gael-Labour Coalition Government provide to those people?

We had a house improvement grant scheme.

More has been done in the past three or four years. Indeed Deputy O'Sullivan will bear this out in Cork. I agree that we need to do a lot more but in Madden's Buildings, Roche's Buildings and the Corporation buildings, a refurbishment programme has been carried out.

It was started by Mr. Toddy O'Sullivan.

Much needed facilities have been provided by this Minister. We have received more than 20 per cent of the national allocation over the past three years because of the plans we have submitted to the Department. I can remember listening to the radio and hearing comments about Deputy Mitchell's performance in Government that were not very nice. He may wish to forget that and I am not going to develop this point here but before we start throwing stones we should remember that.

I want to refer to some of the points raised by Deputy Allen. I agree with him that we have a housing problem and I am not running away from that. We have to tackle the housing problem in Cork. However I must compliment the Minister on his most recent document on housing because for the first time we have options in relation to housing people. At present 61 per cent of the people on the housing list are lone parents and many of them are being offered accommodation in locations that are unsuitable locations in which, and I am referring to my own city, I would much prefer not to live. The Minister is giving a number of options to local authorities to house people where they wish to be housed and in the way they want to be housed. The blanket knocking of the Minister, statements calling on him to resign, and so on are mere waffle. This is unbecoming of people who are supposed to be making a constructive contribution to the debate and it is not very helpful either.

I will certainly lobby the Minister for greater resources for my own area. However, if we want to take an all-party approach to this problem, we should adopt an all-party approach and not say one thing one day and something else at local level.

Members referred to the allocation of national lottery funds but my Opposition colleague did not give us accurate information when he spoke yesterday. Last year over £750,000 in lottery funds was allocated to Cork, of which £250,000 went to the city. I am not saying that is enough, we all need more, but we should at least acknowledge the assistance that has been given to the region.

I commend this Bill to the House. For the first time in over 40 years a real attempt is being made to do something at local level. I believe this offers an ideal opportunity for the Members of the Dáil to participate in framing the legislation. This is only the beginning of local government reform. It is an ongoing process that will take time, effort and co-operation. We are also members of local authorities and irrespective of the political division in this House — naturally the Opposition have to play the Opposition role and I understand that — I appeal to them to play a positive role. I hope that as a result of our contributions on this legislation, local government will be seen to be effective into the nineties and into the next century and then we can say we will have made a worthwhile contribution to improving things and achieving greater efficiency thus creating a better environment at local level.

Having listened to Deputy Wallace let me say that I found his contribution enlightening particularly his reference to the vast investment in housing and inner city development in Cork. He certainly has scotched a perception that seems to be prevalent in Dublin that we in Mayo are getting a large slice of the action. That is far from the truth. I wonder if it is the Progressive Democrats input into Government that is responsible for the allocations to Cork, or if Deputy Wallace and his Fianna Fáil colleagues are responsible for it. Be that as it may, we in Mayo have not been so fortunate in getting our share of the national largesse.

One of the major sources of grievance of local authorities over the years has been the gradual whittling away of powers. There has been a very gradual, but perceptible diminution of the real powers of local authorities, whether urban councils, corporations, borough councils, town commissioners or county councils. The words "local authority" are a misnomer in this context. Over the years those involved in local government have found themselves gradually relegated to being not local representatives but local administrators.

The Bill was a long time coming. There was great controversy in relation to the composition of the committee. As Chief Whip, I expressed major reservations in relation to our participation on the committee. Our participation was conditional on a very reasonable ground, that we would not participate in any all-party committee unless that committee tackled the fundamental, basic, elementary problem of the financing of local authorities. We said we would agree to participate provided the Government agreed to set up an all-party taxation committee. We regard the financing of local authorities as being part and parcel of the overall national financial component. Local taxation cannot be taken in isolation. There needs to be reform of the overall tax system, whether it be income tax, indirect taxation, or value added tax. The whole spectrum of taxation needs to be tackled. Therefore, we would participate in a committee only if a parallel committee would operate that would de-politicise the whole aspect of the debate. That was a reasonably generous and reasonable offer, but it was turned down by the major party in Government. The Government parties decided to go ahead on their own.

The Bill that eventually emerged has been a gross disappointment. In the months the committee have met there have been informed leaks about what the Bill would contain. There was a general air of expectation that there would be fundamental and major reform of local government, but what eventually emerged was nothing more than a pallid dissertation of the compromise views of the parties in Government. I have no hesitation in joining my colleague. Deputy Mitchell and other colleagues on this side of the House in opposing the Bill. After all the deliberation and the informed leaks the Bill is a hopelessly inept attempt to bring about much-needed and long-promised local government reform.

In the twenties we got our freedom as a nation but we certainly did not get our freedom as a people. My belief is that we in the provinces will never free ourselves until we shake off our shackles or dependency on central Government and control from Dublin. In gaining our freedom what we have done is simply replaced control from London with a different kind of colonial power, control from the centre in Dublin. Over the years, rather than devolving power to the regions and the people of Ireland, power has in fact accrued in a very colonialist way to the very centre in Dublin. Rather than bestowing genuine local democratic input to the people on the ground, the Bill further solidifies and consolidates the central control of the Minister and the Government. It is quite clear, therefore, that if there is to be genuine devolved power in rural Ireland and in the provinces to enable genuine local government input then there will be a major battle ahead and some other Government will have to bring forward another major local government reform Bill. Another, more meaningful, Bill is required if we are to give discretion, autonomy, and democracy to the countries and the regions at local level.

A strong and independent local government system is worth fighting for. There will be bitter disappointment among local authorities and members of all parties when they sit down to deliberate the contents of the Bill, because it does nothing for local democracy. Every provision in the Bill means that the regions will have to genuflect to Dublin before they can take any real or worthwhile local initiative.

It is clear that the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government view of democracy is very much that power resides by right at the centre and that the centre therefore allows at its own discretion, and only at its own discretion, that part of power to drift down to the people at grassroots level. That is precisely the wrong and inverted view of democracy. In any real system of democratic government power has to be seen, and must be underlined and underpinned, at local level. Democratic power is delegated upwards, not downwards. The institutions of Government, and the tiers of Government through which the public services are delivered must reflect the delegation of power upwards. In other words, the strongest tier of Government for the provision of services must be the closest to the people. Not only is that argument to be made in terms of democracy, but it has also been proved conclusively in numerous studies undertaken through the years that the most effective, efficient, and economic way to operate public services is through multipurpose local authorities based on average units of population of 18,000 people. Unfortunately, we do not appear to have learnt that lesson here yet.

There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that the primary reason for the decay and death of the west of Ireland has been the constant refusal by Dublin Government after Dublin Government to delegate any kind of independent decision-making powers to the counties and the regions. I do not have the slightest hesitation in saying that the provinces — and I can speak as a Member from the west — would be much better off as autonomous or semi-independent regions on their own than they are under the present set up. At present we must constantly doff our caps in a beholden fashion when time and time again we come on delegations in the direction of the mandarins in Merrion Street.

Every local authority house has to be approved by the Minister for the Environment. Every sewerage and water scheme must have his specific approval. Every time we move a speed limit we must send a memorandum to the mandarins in the Custom House. We cannot build a library, a fire station, or a halting site without the time-consuming and costly procedures of submitting the proposals and plans to the Department of the Environment, getting permission to go to tender, vetting the tenders locally, and then sending them to Dublin for further examination and approval. There follows the inevitable stream of queries, clarifications, and further points of clarification, and the recommendation from Dublin to scale down or water down the project. Eventually, perhaps — and only perhaps — after a long and time-consuming delay, there comes the green light.

Perhaps the most recent and glaring example of lack of central Government's trust and confidence in local authorites was the handling of the amenity grants scheme under the national lottery fund. Local authorities were asked by the Minister to advertise in the local press for applications. There was a great air of expectation that there would be a major bonanza for communities. Every community group, sporting and recreational, submitted applications. The applications were taken to the offices of county secretaries in the local authorities but the secretaries cannot vet them. The secretaries simply have to put them in alphabetical order, having been specifically told not to prioritise them in any way. The applications will go to the Custom House and after three or four months the Minister will decide exactly who is to be grant-aided. That is an indication of the lack of input by local authorities on something so fundamental, independent local knowledge.

The west of Ireland will never thrive as long as there is a centrally handed down system of Government. The ironic point is that the west has the real resources of this country. The west has huge natural resources that have not been harnessed, tapped, or properly exploited because of lack of Government interest. We have failed to harness the resources through either local or national interests.

For example, in Mayo we have more Blue Flag beaches per kilometre of coastline than anywhere else in the world. We have clean, unpolluted air, lakes, rivers, and the Atlantic laden with fish. There are numerous golf courses, magnificent scenery and cheap accommodation. We have land which, if not suitable for agricultural purposes on the same scale as are the plains of Meath, the plains of Kildare, or the Golden Vale, is certainly extremely suitable for the production of one of our greatest shortages, timber. Yet we get only a minuscule share of the national tourist revenue. We have never been vested with the real power of selling our own product. For example, Ireland West, the local tourist promotion organisation, and their counterpart in the north-western region are extremely limited in their promotional opportunities. For example, they cannot advertise abroad. All the details as to requirements and standards must be set down by Bord Fáilte. As I said, all foreign promotional work is done by the Bord Fáilte office in Dublin. Despite the modern era of promotion and advertising, and specially hiring agencies to sell a product, if an agency is selling a similar product for nine different people, there is nobody else better qualified or more committed to selling your product than yourself. There are dozens of communities in provincial Ireland with vast resources, capable, willing and anxious to put together integrated packages and sell them directly abroad, but this local initiative does not get a single penny of central Government funding because Bord Fáilte are the national organisation vested with the power to do the job.

The promotion of the counties and regions of Ireland for industrial purposes is not carried out by the local IDA offices but by the central IDA office in Dublin. There is liaison between the regional offices and the central office, but nothing more. There is an understandable tendency that industrialists who come here go in the direction in which they are pointed by headquarters in Dublin. After all, they are the people who give the grants. At county council level there are county development teams, but they are county development teams in theory only. They have enormous potential and goodwill but they get a mere £20,000 to £25,000 per annum, sin an méid. They are toothless tigers. There is more money spent on travelling expenses than in stimulating local initiatives or giving priming grants because the resources are not available.

I fail to see why a decent industrial loans scheme cannot be set up. For example, £200,000 per annum, not an excessive amount, could be given to each county development team to promote small local initiatives either of a service or manufacturing nature within each county. It would be a revolving fund that would be self-financing because people would repay the loans, at a low rate of interest. That is an initiative that would be well worth while, yet there is no reference to it in the Bill.

The plea to devolve powers to the provinces has been made time and again over the years but has amounted to nothing. One of the biggest tragedies is that we were led to believe that with access to the EC, particularly in the context of 1992, greater cohesion and the availability of Structural and Regional Funds, the regions would thrive. However if a region has a good idea it cannot apply directly to Brussels for finance. Every application for finance, from £1 to £1 million, must be channelled through the Department of Finance in Merrion Street, and we know it will never see the light of day in Brussels. If the local authorities are to function properly surely it is fundamental that they be given the right of direct access to Brussels for finance. Again this possibility is precluded.

I listened to Deputy Wallace talking about devolving power to the regions. He said section 43 sets up eight regional authorities, but that is meaningless. It is another charade. They would simply be replacements for the regional development organisations if they could not make direct application to Brussels for Structural Funds. The Structural Funds go directly to the Department of Finance and only the crumbs from the rich man's table get to the regions. A good example of that is the new roads plan where the funds simply go as far as the border, Rosslare, Kinnegad or Portlaoise and no further.

The relationship between central Government and local government was well illustrated when the now defunct national development plan was being put together. The EC naively had the idea that Ireland in common with other countries would promote the idea of partnership with local and regional interests. Instead, the Government responded by abolishing the nine regional development organisations. Everybody accepts that the RDOs were not perfect but at least they provided a democratic forum for councillors and officials to discuss regional development. In their place the Department of Finance set up seven new sub-regions, each with a working group dominated by civil servants from Dublin and an advisory group drawn from the social partners, with the county council chairmen thrown in — and I mean thrown in — to give the whole charade a veneer of democracy. It emerged later that their degree of input into the National Development Plan was only to the extent to which their ideas corresponded with what had been decided by the Department of Finance. One could hardly find a more classic example of top-down planning.

Examining the contents of the Bill which is based on the Barrington report, I must go back to what Dr. Barrington said in 1989. Dr. Barrington is a well known critic of the way we run our affairs, particularly our form of local government. Talking about Ireland's system of local government he said:

Intensive centralisation since the 1920s has been a ghastly failure with central Government sinking into a sludge of detailed business that clogs channels of decision, swamps strategic issues, frustrates initiative and bureaucraticises the whole. But rather than seek the causes of the failure we take another fix of bureaucratic centralism. What a crazy way to run a democracy!

I am sure Dr. Barrignton must share our collective disillusionment and disappointment at how little of his recommendations found their way into the Local Government Bill, 1991.

In this country we do not have local democracy or local government. What we have is the trappings of local democracy. What we have, as the late Deputy John Kelly said two years ago from the backbenches, is the empty husk of democracy and faceless officials who get on with the show of running the job. We simply have an elaborate system not of local government but of local administration. While we might fool ourselves by thinking that we have local government structures with 115 local authorities, town commissioners, urban councils, corporations and borough councils, they are authorities in name only. Indeed, the relationship between them and central Government is very much one of acting simply in loco parentis because local councils are treated no better than errant children. Nothing is too small to escape the attention of the civil servants in the Custom House.

It is ironic that we who fought so hard for democracy should end up with the most centralised democratic form of government. Furthermore it is ironic that at a time when the highly centralised systems of the East are disintegrating, we should introduce a Bill which further asserts central control and tightens the stranglehold of the Minister and the Government on local government and stultifies, negatives and kills off any prospect of local government.

Looking at the developed western democracies, particularly continental Europe, local government is the main vehicle for the delivery of public services. Yet democracy in this country is based on a model in which all power resides majestically in a highly centralised core. This power and discretion are delegated and circulated downwards away from the centre. We get eventually what is left over, the power that central Government are simply not interested in, the residual powers which are no use to them, the peripheral powers, the crumbs from the rich man's table, as I said previously.

When one compares this attitude with continental Europe one can see the huge contrast. In continental Europe, country by country — these are the new models even after the break-up of the Warsaw Pact countries — they see power residing naturally with the grass roots and the people. Responsibility for services is seen as residing most effectively, efficiently, economically and democratically with the local community. Only the services which cannot be provided by the community from their own resources are delegated to the region and, if the region cannot provide the service in question, it is ultimately delegated to central Government. This is how it should be in Ireland but it will not be under this Bill.

I understand that there is an official attitude within Government Departments that certain files which come from the provinces are sometimes initialled or stamped MAD — in this instance "MAD" stands for "maximum administrative delay". In other words, if it does not suit central Government, and if it will cost too much, every possible administrative obstacle will be put in the way. In relation to various plans, developmental, environmental or others, which have come from the regions over the years quite a number have been consigned to the MAD scrap heap.

That is very unfair. The Deputy is launching an attack on people who are not in a position to defend themselves.

The Minister of State will have ample opportunity to reply and to defend them. That is what he is paid for.

It is not fair to launch an attack on officials.

We await, with bated breath, the contribution of the Minister of State. I am sure he will wax eloquently and lyrically in defence of his civil servants, that is his job. The files which come from the west certainly do not get cothrom na féinne.

The Deputy's interpretation is incorrect.

I have it on very good authority and I stand over it. I make no apology for saying it and if the Minister looks at the amount of money which eventually filters to the counties on the west coast he will see that what I am saying is true.

I am not talking about that; I am talking about the slur the Deputy cast on officials.

I can quote chapter and verse in support of my allegation. When the Minister stands up he can refute what I am saying by using chapter, verse and relevant quotations.

I am refuting the slur the Deputy cast on officials.

The Minister can do so in his contribution. I will gladly come into the House to listen when he decides to speak or when it is scripted for him in the Department.

I am well able to do that on my own, I have been here for a long time now and I am well able to speak.

I know that and when the Minister intends to speak he should telephone me.

The Deputy should be allowed to proceed.

Deputy Mitchell said that one of the frightening aspects of the Bill is the degree of power and the stranglehold which the Minister will have in relation to a number of key issues. One of these relates to the electoral areas. For example, section 12 of the Bill says that the Minister may by order fix for each local electoral area the number of members of the council of the county borough to be elected therefore and the number of those members who are to be aldermen, but what is crucial and fundamental to democracy is that if a number is to be fixed it should be done in relation to proportionality. However, having perused the Bill I cannot find any evidence of proportionality or ratio. We know that in existing local authorities there are an extreme number of variables in relation to the number of councillors representing particular areas, vis-à-vis the population. Furthermore, the Minister has the power to alter the number of such members who are to be aldermen. It is essentially a question of title but it again gives absolute discretion to the Minister.

One of the most sinister powers also devolved to the Minister is the discretionary right to draw the boundaries without necessarily having recourse to the independent committee referred to in the Bill. I take on board the point made by Deputy Wallace but this is an aspect of the Bill which should be again examined by the Minister and amendments should be accepted by him. It is fundamental that any tinkering with boundaries or numbers should be done by an independent commission at local or national level.

Section 16 of the Bill deals with vocational education; we know that VECs are comprised of not fewer than five and not more than eight members of local authorities, county councils in other words. We also know that every urban council can nominate two members provided there are fewer than four urban councils within a particular county council area. Every local authority can and do nominate two members of urban district councils directly to vocational education committees.

In view of the fact that, unfortunately, elections for the urban councils and town commissioners are not going ahead, the members of urban councils in situ which means that the results of the 1985 local elections in urban council areas will decide the urban council members on the new VECs which will be elected something like 21 days after the local elections on 27 June. I do not doubt that the stranglehold on many of those urban councils has been by the major Government party which, therefore, translated to VECs. Despite the fact that there may be an anti-Government swing in local elections which would give control of county councils to other parties.——

Wishful thinking.

That remains to be seen, the Deputy's party have never done well in council elections, apart from 1985. This will give an unreal majority to Fianna Fáil, in particular on VECs. We know the consequences of that — it means the appointment of teachers, post responsibility holders, principals, vice principals and caretakers to community colleges and vocational schools. I know the Minister had a particular difficulty in this regard.

What worries me in relation to the Bill — it has been said in the House on numerous occasions over the last three days — is why the Minister has not been specific in relation to giving a definite headline within which the urban council or the town commissioner elections should be held. He would allay many fears and suspicions if he did so. He should do so at the conclusion of Second Stage because there are genuine anxieties on the other side of the House in this regard.

Deputy Wallace's contribution was interesting. As chairman of the committee, he had a full involvement in what went on within the committee. He admitted that there is a crisis in relation to the financing of local authorities, particularly in his native city of Cork. It is unfortunate that there is no financial provision in the Bill because, if we are to have meaningful local authorities, they must have devolved revenue raising powers. It is a difficult problem, a political bed of nails, a minefield, but it is something which should be tackled and which should have been tackled.

I acknowledge that the problem in relation to the financing of local authorities did not begin in 1977, it began before then, but it was exacerbated by what happened in 1977 and it got progressively worse within the next two to three years, it will have to be tackled. I do not know whether it should be tackled on an all party, single party or unilateral basis.

It is extremely difficult to understand the present outrage in certain local authorities in relation to service charges. A service must be paid for. My own belief in relation to service and service charges is that, unfortunately, when the 1983 Local Government (Financial Provisions) Bill was brought in, it was not uniformly implemented and enforced across the board. That was a tragedy and it has given rise to the glaring anomaly where, for example, there are service charges in Leixlip in County Kildare, which is on one side of the Liffey, and no charges in Dublin, which is on the other side.

I come from County Mayo, a county which would not be looked on as having a high level of per capita income; yet we have an 85 per cent success rate in relation to service charges. We have a charge of £75 for water and sewerage services and a £25 charge for refuse services. Perhaps we have managed to inculate a better degree of civil appreciation of the services among the people there. We have found that the charges work well and people appreciate the services they get. There is a general acknowledgement that a charge of £100 per year or £2 per week per household for water, sewerage and refuse services is good value.

The key safety valve in relaton to service charges is the waiver. It is also the great safety value in relation to the provision of social equity and equalisation across the board. Our county manager, his later predecessor and officials operate the waiver in a very worthwhile and discretionary fashion. I believe this is what has helped us to have the kind of financial equilibrium and general acceptance of the scheme we have. If this can happen in County Mayo, the most far flung county in the country, I do not understand why it cannot happen elsewhere. It is unfortunate that these charges were not enforced when they were brought in.

As I have said, I am disappointed with the Bill. I thought it would have teeth and clout and would genuinely reform local government. I also thought it would give us from the provinces a worthwhile democratic input but unfortunately it has done very little, if any, of this.

I listened with interest to what Deputy Higgins had to say. I do not agree with everything he said but I have to say — I will refer to this point in more detail later — that it is the first contribution I heard from that side of the House which tried to address the issue before us, local government reform. As I said, I will refer later to the contributions made by other members on that side of the House.

Perhaps on mature reflection, Deputy Higgins will withdraw the remarks he made about civil servants and what they do with files from County Mayo, County Meath or elsewhere. I am not that long in this House but I think it is a tradition here that civil servants who cannot defend themselves in the House are not attacked in this manner. I am sure Deputy Higgins will withdraw his remarks at the earliest opportunity. He may want to transfer the blame to the Minister of State who is broad shouldered and can take that on. The tradition of not referring to people who cannot defend themselves in the House is one which should be continued.

I want to refer to some other points raised by Deputy Higgins. Section 12 provides for the division of county boroughs into local electoral areas and so on. All that is involved in this section is a consolidation of existing laws which have been scattered over a number of enactments since 1898. As recently as 1985, a defect was found in relation to Galway arising from the Local Government (Re-Organisation) Act, 1985. There is nothing new or sinister in this section.

Deputy Higgins also referred to the boundary changes and the discretionary powers of the Minister. The Minister has the power at present to change boundaries without reference to anyone. Contrary to what has been alleged, the Minister is making provision in the Bill for consultation — local authorities may initiate boundary changes themselves. This is a step in the right direction. Perhaps, as Deputy Higgins and Deputy Wallace said, this could be amended further so that this function could be carried out independently. I welcome the provisions in the Bill in this area which will be a welcome addition to the powers of local authorities.

I welcome the Bill, which I regard as the first real reforming measure to be introduced in 20 years of talking. I am a passionate believer in local government; strong local government is essential. Like Deputy Higgins, I believe very few people would say that local government is alive, well and healthy in Ireland; it is not. This problem has been with us for the past 20 years — perhaps it existed before that — when mention was first made of reform and White Papers were published.

I firmly agree with the principle of subsidiarity. Where services can be provided they should be provided at the level closest to people. Yesterday some speakers referred to subsidiarity in relation to the EC and said that as the Government have accepted the principle of subsidiarity in relation to EC and Government affairs they should also do so nationally. I should like them to go a step further and accept the same principle in relation to local government and local services. What we need is local government, something we do not have at present. What we have at present is the administration of central services by local authorities at a local level. Government means having power and power means responsibility. Perhaps some people would not like to see this at local level. It is a double edged sword. Councillors who are shouting for more powers and so on will have to be prepared to accept more responsibility for their own affairs. Even though I only regard it as a preliminary Bill, this Bill contains many provisions which will give councillors added powers. I hope they will be able to face the responsibility that this entails.

Much of the malaise in local government stems from a lack of power and responsibility by councillors to manage their affairs locally. In case I am misquoted, I am not saying that they act irresponsibly. However, they have no real responsibility for many of the things which happen in their areas and 85 per cent or 90 per cent of their budgets are decided before they start to talk about estimates, pensions, employment and so on.

I believe many councillors feel frustrated in their role as local public representatives because of this lack of responsibility and power. If this Bill has not been published, no procedures put in place over the past 12 months, no recommendations made by the expert committee and no commitment given by the Government to reform local government, I believe many councillors would not be standing for re-election in this year's local elections. Councillors have felt totally frustrated and believed they were getting nowhere. This Bill and the report of the expert advisory committee restored their belief that reforms would be introduced in the local government area. I also believe many members of the public were frustrated with our system of local government. They were frustrated at the inability of local authorities and their members to do things. Simple things which could have been done very quickly a few years back can no longer be done and people believed there was no point in giving local authorities extra powers or functions.

As I have said, I am a firm believer in local government. I was looking forward very much to this debate as I felt it was an ideal opportunity to put local government reform to the fore in this House. I thought there would be an exchange of views across the Floor and that new ideas and suggestions would be put forward which would improve the Bill. I also thought suggestions would be put forward in regard to the remainder of the reform programme which must be put in place. So far I have been gravely disappointed. I listened with interest to Deputy Higgins, the first Fine Gael speaker to address the structures of local government and the broader issues rather than talk about potholes, housing and so on as did other Fine Gael speakers. They are all important issues in their own right but this debate should not be hijacked to try to score political points in the run up to the local elections. A housing Bill, and a national road authority Bill, will be introduced shortly and people can make points about roads and potholes and so on in the debates on them. The issue to be addressed here is local government reform. I have heard nothing but whining and complaints from the Opposition, particularly from Fine Gael, to the effect that they did not have enough time, that there was not enough in the Bill and so on.

Fine Gael's initial criticism was that they did not have enough time to consider the Bill and to consult with various bodies on it. I am not surprised that Fine Gael are in such disarray. For 20 years there has been talk about local government reform and dozens of reports have been produced. In 1981, when Meath County Council, at the request of the Minister for the Environment, began studying reports so as to prepare submission on local government reform, 17 reports had to be consulted. There have been dozens of reports since then dealing with all aspects of local government. There have been hundreds of seminars and conferences about local government, and yet Fine Gael tell us that they have not had enough time to consider this Bill or to consult. Even without the preamble to which I referred the Government clearly signalled their intention to reform local government as far back as July 1989.

The Government waited nine months for Fine Gael to join an all-party committee, but they refused point blank to do so. In desperation, when we could not get all-party support, the Government in June 1990 announced that they were setting up a Cabinet sub-committee. They commissioned a report from the Barrington Commission who asked for submissions. When those submissions were considered on 7 March this year the Minister announced that would be in the Local Government Bill. There are not any surprises in it. That was two months ago. Is 20 years not long enough for Fine Gael to prepare for a debate on reforms like this? Did they not have enough time to consult people since June 1990? Could they not have consulted people since 7 March 1991 when they knew the specifics of the Bill? Why did not their spokespersons contact their own councillors to get a reaction to what the Minister was proposing.

If the front bench spokespersons from Fine Gael had contacted some of their members on Meath County Council, those councillors would have been able to brief them fully on the merits of many of the proposals the Minister is putting forward in this Bill. They could have contacted the secretary of the General Council of County Councils, AMAI and LAMA to try to get a reaction. Those bodies are not that remote that they would not facilitate Opposition spokespersons. I have no doubt that the Labour Party's and The Workers' Party's spokespersons did precisely that. If Fine Gael had done that they would have been better prepared for this debate and would not have had to whine.

The truth is that the time argument is all nonsense. Fine Gael did not need time, they needed a few ideas, clear thinking and a more positive attitude to the Bill. Fine Gael at parliamentary party level do not give a hang about local government or local democracy and that is a shame. The Fine Gael front bench spokespersons have let many fine local Fine Gael public representatives down by their attitude to this and their incompetence in handling it. The front bench spokespersons I heard certainly do not reflect the views of many Fine Gael councillors who are deeply committed to local government. The spokespersons should get their act together and consult with those councillors before Committee Stage.

The expert committee which was set up received submissions from all types of groups — banks, chambers of commerce, local authorities, local authority members, residents' associations, planning institutes, An Taisce and various professional organisations. It is not surprising that Fine Gael are not included in that list. That is the extent of their commitment to local government. Are they so bereft of ideas that they could not make a submission even to the expert committee? The debate so far shows that they are bereft of ideas and it is no wonder that they are in the state they are in. I regret this very much as local government deserves better. I sincerely hope we will get better from Fine Gael when we come to the Committee Stage.

In relation to the concept of local government, because of the problems local authorities have faced, we are often asked why we need local government. The closer decision-making is to the people the better. If decision-making is more accessible, it is obviously more acceptable. People may not agree with all the decisions made but they feel they can have some influence if they know the people making the decisions, whether it be the local councillor at local level or the TD at national level. People need to know that they can have some influence either directly or indirectly on the decision-making process. If people feel they do not have that influence frustration sets in. Over the last eight to ten years particularly, there has been an increased number of pressure groups on various issues. This is because people have been frustrated with the system. They feel it is not amenable to them, that they do not have access to it and so on. This has occurred because local authorities seem to have less and less power and control. At the extreme end of this phenomenon it can lead to subversion and undermining of all democratic institutions. We do not have to look too far away from this country to see that. It is important that people have direct access to decision-making processes in local government.

It is important also to have a strong system of local government because studies in Britain and Europe have proved that "local" can mean "more efficient". Services can be delivered more cost effectively at local level than at national level. Administration at local level where local publicly elected councillors have influence is more flexible in meeting local needs. The further one goes from the people the less flexible the system becomes, with the result that people feel frustrated and lash out occasionally because of it.

There has been criticism from all sides of the House that this Bill does not go far enough in reforming the system of local government. I agree with that, as does everybody else in the House. The Minister also agrees with it. He has repeatedly stressed that this is but the first step. In his first release of 3 May he stated that it initiates a major programme of reform. On 7 March he outlined what he would include in this Bill and went on to say that other aspects of reform would be dealt with afterwards. The Minister has not said that this is local government reform and that this is the end of the whole thing as seems to be implied by a number of speakers. This is just one step in the process of local government reform, and I am looking forward to the other steps along the way.

If this legislation consisted of nothing else but what is in section 6 it would be very worthwhile. Every word that has been written in relation to local government reform since 1970, with the exception of one submission that I saw, mentioned the principle of ultra vires, which means that the local authority must have specific legal authority to carry out any function or to carry out any work. Every submission or recommendation that I have seen over 14 years as a member of a local authority strongly advocated the abolition of the ultra vires rule. Section 6 of the Bill does this. The ultra vires rule is outdated and totally inflexible. It hampered local authorities and prevented them from doing much needed work in their own areas and from responding to obvious needs and aspirations of the local communities. The local authority had no say whatsoever in major happenings in some counties and local authority areas, but often ended up with a Bill for those. Let me take one example in my own constituency, the now famous concerts at Slane Castle, where promoters brought 80,000 to 100,000 people into a small village in County Meath for a two to three day period. That created massive problems for the local population. It created huge problems regarding sanitary services, refuse collection, control of traders, sale of alcohol and so on. The local authority, however, had no power to deal with any of that. But for the co-operation of the promoters, there could have been chaos there. That is just one example. Deputy Higgins would have experience of similar events in Castlebar some years ago. The change in section 6 will, I hope, allow local authorities to regulate and control such things and other things as well.

In passing, I would suggest the making of by-laws to regulate such events and allow local authorities to impose such conditions as are necessary for regulating events such as that. The report on crowd control suggested that some regulatory committee be set up to monitor and advise on all of these things. I do not think there is any necessity to do that. The local authority should be given the powers to make by-laws to respond to events such as this and to regulate anything that happens within their local authority area. The section would be strengthened by the inclusion of a provision relating to by-laws. Overall this section is very important and has been called for by everybody who has made submissions in relation to local authority reform.

There has been some criticism of the Advisory Committee report and of the committee itself because there was no county councillor on the committee. I can accept that local public representatives would feel snubbed by this and would always defend their right to make submissions and to be part of such committees. In this case councillors individually and local authorities as bodies made submissions and put across the points of view of members; the AMAI, LAMA and the General Council of County Councils made submissions which would have weighed heavily. It is obvious from the report itself that they did weigh heavily with the committee. In another forum recently I referred to the report of the advisory expert committee as a charter for local councillors. The general thrust of this report is excellent. There may be some disagreement in regard to some items in it which I will refer to later, for instance, the discussion on a sub-county tier of administration and the lack of clarity in regard to the functions to be devolved. The report itself, however, accepts the principle of subsidiarity and strongly recommends it. It also accepts the primary role of the elected member of the local authority and urges a monitoring process for the implementation of the report itself. It also urges a basic statement of principle from the Government in relation to local government. From that base the report has gone from strength to strength in endorsing the repeated calls for a releasing of control at central level down to local level. Deputy Higgins put the case eloquently in regard to that so I will not go back over it.

As a member of a local authority I can find no fault with this report. I would endorse it fully. I join with Deputy Higgins in my support of those recommendations. I take the opportunity to request from the Government a commitment to ratify the charter for local self government. I request also a commitment from the Government for a constitutional recognition for local government. Now that we will have regional bodies in place after the local elections a further commitment from the Government to allow access to EC funds by those regional bodies should be considered. I accept there would be difficulties but such a move would underline their obvious commitment to reform local government.

Concern has been expressed about the recommendation that there be a sub-county tier of local government. On a number of occasions in the recent past the Taoiseach, the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of State at the Department, who is present in the House, sought publicly to reassure us — I welcome their assurances — that no town which already has one will lose its council or town commissioners. I also heartily welcome their assurance that the councils will not be downgraded, if anything their functions will be enhanced. This should allay any fears people might have.

With regard to a sub-county tier of local government, only two options were considered in the report. As they were considered in great detail I do not intend to go into the pros and cons but neither is acceptable for the simple reason that they would not work. One would have to wonder therefore why these were the only two options considered.

I suggest that the district councils should consist of members of town and county councils and that in each electoral area a directly elected council should be set up in the largest town or to cover a number of towns if need be. Some of their members together with members of the county council, should then form part of the sub-county tier being referred to. I would further suggest that these councils be financed by both the town council and the county council and that both urban and rural interests be represented at this level. Indeed, the proposals dealing with the sub-county structures should be referred back to the advisory expert committee, if this has not been done already, as my one criticism of the committee is that they fudged this issue for some reason. As I have said, my proposal to make the procedure used to change boundaries much simpler should be welcomed. It is the experience of the authority in my own constituency — I do not think we are the exception — that approximately two-thirds of the hinterland of each town is not included within the established urban boundaries. This makes a nonsense of local government.

I also welcome the proposal that joint committees consisting of members of a number of county councils be established which would form part of a regional tier of local government. There is a definite need for co-ordination and greater co-operation between councils. My own local authority, because of its closeness to Dublin, faces particular problems. Indeed our problems are mutual in that there has been an overspill into the countryside where the soil is not suitable for the construction of septic tanks. We are holding discussions with Dublin County Council on a possible link with their sewerage systems.

We not only are getting their co-operation but also that of the Department on that matter. Joint committees would be very welcome in this regard given the need to co-ordinate major infrastructural developments and expenditure.

I thank the Minister for underlining in the Bill the important role played by elected members as it is crucial they be given the status they deserve. Their status will be enhanced if they are given a greater role and new powers with the result that people feel they are being listened to and have some influence. The measures in the Bill dealing with the payment of allowances to chairmen of local authorities, with civic honours and with twinning arrangements are to be welcomed as they will ehance their role.

On Committee Stage we should consider introducing an allowance to be paid to members of local authorities to cover the costs incurred in making phone calls or sending letters given that they work on a voluntary basis. I do not think it should be done any other way. Neither do I agree with the suggestion that councillors be paid. However they should not find themselves out of pocket in performing their duties on behalf of the public. Even a local authority should be able to provide franked envelopes or telephone facilities and I would ask the Minister to consider this suggestion.

Reference has been made to section 44 of the Bill which deals with section 4 motions. I accept, like other Members of the House, that concern has been expressed about the abuse of these motions. If there have been abuses they have occurred in a minority of local authorities and have been well publicised and criticised either by members of the Opposition parties or interested groups. The procedure is subject to public scrutiny in that members have to sign and discuss the motion. This is all done in public. Therefore if people feel that members are abusing their position and that something untoward is happening, they have a remedy: they can remove the councillor or councillors concerned at the next election. That is what the elections are for. Given that the procedure is subject to public scrutiny and councillors are answerable to the public for their actions those who abuse the system will get their answer when the election comes round.

A further safeguard in the planning laws as they are at the moment is that every one of these decisions can be appealed to an independent body. There are cases where local authority officials appeal section 4 motions that are passed by the council to An Bord Pleanála. I think the Bill is an unsuitable vehicle for dealing with this aspect. We need a whole review of the present planning laws and procedures. There has to be a careful scrutiny of decision making procedures whether at local authority or An Bord Pleanála level.

Many people are concerned about the increasing number of appeals decisions made by An Bord Pleanála that are being referred back to them or that are thrown out by the High Court because proper procedures were not followed. Very recently in County Meath the board gave a decision in relation to an employment project in the meat processing industry and it was appealed to the High Court on the basis that the board did not give the objectors enough time to get a human and social impact study. The High Court upheld that claim and sent the file back to An Bord Pleanála. In a previous decision on the same case the High Court referred it back to An Bord Pleanála because they had not followed proper procedures. I am not alleging any illegal activities or irregularities in the case; I am saying the file was sent back because the High Court felt the procedures did not protect the objectors fully. We must have a serious look at that.

To digress slightly, if we are talking about changing planning laws, section 4 decisions and so on, the structures in An Bord Pleanála should be changed to allow for different types of development. Rather than follow Deputy Browne's suggestion that we divide the board into area Boird Pleanála, perhaps we should decide that one section in An Bord Pleanála would deal with housing and such development while the other section would deal with industrial and commercial development, have experts in both and streamline the procedures and so on. Since proposals to set up industrial projects tend to create hassle, I suggest we should have designated industrial sites where planning has been cleared and there is no need to go through a lengthy procedure. People will know this is an industrial estate where certain types of industries will be permitted to be sited. The type of building and the facilities provided can be agreed and put before the people in a form similar to the county development plan. All this would be subject to appeal, of course, but it would eliminate the wasteful, time consuming procedures that are necessary at present.

There has been widespread criticism about the powers conferred on the Minister in the Bill. That is nonsense. This Bill is an enabling Bill which will allow things to happen. Local government has been hamstrung for the last 20 years. It is not adaptable; it is inflexible and cannot respond to change because there is no mechanism within local government legislation to make changes and to move quickly.

Sections 5 and 6 of the Bill give greater freedom to local authorities but many of the other sections that are criticised allow the Minister to devolve power to local authorities by ministerial order. At present the Minister can do nothing even in regard to area boundaries. With the best will in the world he might want to do what a local authority or groups of local authorities might ask him to do but the legislation is so inflexible that he has no power to do it. He is powerless to bring about change. I appeal to Deputies, particularly those who criticise this and say the Minister is taking all the power unto himself, to read the Bill again carefully. If in future we want the changes we hope to have in the light of this report, the Minister should have power to make the changes without having to go through a cumbersome procedure. Considering it has taken 20 years to get this Bill into the House, I would not like to have to wait another 20 years to get another one in. The powers provided in the Bill will enable the Minister to hand down further powers to local authorities. I welcome that and those who criticise the Bill on that account should have another look at it.

I suggest the Minister recall the expert committee and ask them what functions should be devolved to local authorities. That has to be the next stop. A criticism I have of the report is that it is very woolly regarding what functions should be devolved. It states clearly that functions should be devolved and that is the basic thrust of the document, but it does not spell out the functions. We will be working in the dark until we have this information. Maybe the Minister will come forward with his own list of suggestions.

The conventional wisdom, which I have heard repeated in this debate, in relation to local government reform is that you have to get finance first, whether by raising it locally or nationally. All the discussion has been about finance up to now. As the Minister said in his Second Stage speech, that is putting the cart before the horse. First you talk about structures and functions and then about finance. We have talked here about structures and the Bill will finalise the structures we are talking about. We must talk about functions before we decide what we are going to do at subcounty level. If you have structures in place and you know what functions these structures, or bodies within the structures, will perform, then you can say X amount will be needed.

I appeal to the Minister to get that committee together again, or perhaps he would come up with a list of functions he feels could be devolved over a time and we can work towards that. I ask him to consider favourably also the suggestion in the report that a committee be set up to monitor the implementation of reform. Perhaps on this occasion he would include representatives of the local authority associations.

We have talked about the enhancement of the role of the councillor and there is mention here of giving the chairman an allowance. Because, for one reason or another, managers are actually running local authorities, making most of the decisions and, in some cases, thwarting the views and policies of members, the Minister might consider providing that chairpersons of local authorities be directly elected, employed on a full-time basis and paid accordingly. The chairperson would act as a counter balance to the manager in the role he has increasingly taken to himself. There is frustration that elected members are not being listened to by the manager and that decisions taken by councillors are not being implemented. When reports are called for councillors get only one side of the story. With an elected public representative having a status equal to that of the manager, that position would be redressed.

I warmly endorse the idea of a manager having a term of contract. All of us can get stale in a job and I do not believe anybody should have a job of that importance for the rest of his life — we do not yet have any lady managers. Certainly if a manager takes on a job on a contract basis he must be properly remunerated if his contract is not renewed. Some kind of golden handshake arrangement would be necessary.

The question of the funding of local authorities must be addressed if we are to decide on the structure and the functions to be devolved. If local authority members want and expect more power they will have to accept more responsibility. While it may not be popular to say so, more responsibility means raising some portion of their own finances. Local authorities must have central Government support but must also raise some of their own charges. At regional level they should have access to EC funds.

The system of election to all local authorities should be changed to single seat constituencies with the retention of the PR system. That would enhance local democracy, with members answerable to a much more specific electorate. The elected public representative would be closer to the electorate and reflect their views more accurately. Some people might regard that system as being anti the small party but single seat constituencies in local elections would help rather than hinder smaller parties.

Talk about the reform of the Oireachtas is pointless unless the reform of local authorities is in place. We could all benefit in this House from some procedural changes, particularly in relation to the voting and committee systems, but until such time as we have an effective system of local government there will not be any major change in the Oireachtas. There are few Deputies who can afford the time they should give to national legislation, simply because they have to watch their back in their own constituency. Most Deputies would agree with the proposal which has been floated that Deputies should be barred from standing in the local elections, provided councillors were barred from Dáil elections. It is not realistic with the existing system of election and procedures at Oireachtas level. What is needed is a proper system of local government which is local and is government. If we had that we could realistically talk about electing members to this House to deal with national legislation. Until that is in place we cannot talk about major reforms.

The Bill before us is a good first step on the road to local government reform. I look forward to further reforming Bills from the Minister so that within four or five years we will have a local government system that will be efficient and will constitute government by the people.

I find it touching to listen to Deputy Dempsey, and other contributors from the Government side, talk from the moral high ground and pontificate to the rest of us. It would seem that the 1985 local elections manifesto was never published. That manifesto, and the reckless type of politics indulged in during the run up to the 1987 general election, has brought local government and all politics into disrepute. In this criticism I do not exclude the Progressive Democrats. This notorious document, the 1985 Fianna Fáil local elections manifesto, contains two signatures, those of the Taoiseach and of the Minister for Energy, then Fianna Fáil spokesperson on the Environment. Deputy Dempsey told us we should not concern ourselves with local authority finances at this time. We put the structures in place first and then we talk about finance. Since Fianna Fáil came back into office in 1987 local authorities have been decimated, jobs have been lost, services have contracted, there is an appalling housing crisis in the country. Finance is a problem and must be addressed. I should like to quote from the Fianna Fáil document which states:

Fianna Fáil are totally opposed to the new system of local charges and on return to Office will abolish these charges and repeal the legislation under which they are imposed, namely, the Local Government Financial Provisions No. 2 Act of 1983.

That never happened. Fianna Fáil have been in power for the past four years and have allowed the system of charges to continue. The Fianna Fáil party are presenting us with a Bill which in my view is a pig in a poke. It is the typical "live horse and you will get grass" syndrome.

Much play has been made on the Government side regarding the relaxation of the ultra vires rule. If you look carefully at the Bill you will see that other restrictions are being introduced. If any statutory body in the area is providing a service similar to the type the local authority wish to become involved with then that local authority is prevented from becoming so involved. There is also the enabling power for the Minister to exercise appropriate controls in relation to the relaxation of the ultra vires rule; by way of legislation he can make the new situation much more restrictive than the present one. This applies throughout the whole legislation. I agree with Deputy Dempsey when he said this was an enabling Bill. We are in a similar situation now to that which obtained in 1985 during the run-up to the local elections when Fianna Fáil produced this document over the signature of their party leader and the then spokesperson on the Environment. They are now asking us to accept a Bill, which they say is an enabling Bill but which gives great powers to the Minister to do what he wishes by way of regulation. He may or may not introduce regulations, but they could be very restrictive. I do not believe Fianna Fáil or, indeed, this Government can be trusted when we look at what has happened in the run-up to the 1987 election and what has happened since then.

Much play also has been made from the Government side in relation to subsidiarity or devolution. There is nothing specific in this Bill concerning what services would be devolved to local government. There are many recommendations in the advisory committee's report but Fianna Fáil and the Minister are not telling us what is intended. A lot of aspirational talk from the Government side and vague talk in principle is no substitute for specifics which this Bill lacks. We are told this Bill is a first step and that there will be further legislation. There may very well be further legislation but, under the provisions of this Bill, the Minister is being conferred with very substantial powers by way of regulation. My fear is that when 27 June has come and gone the urgency and the high-falutin talk which is emanating from the Government side, as has happened in the past, will be forgotten and we will be left in a situation not dissimilar to that obtaining now. The fundamental question — the real question — the question of finance which has been totally ignored in this Bill will continue to be ignored and there will be a further run down of local authorities.

Fianna Fáil were responsible in 1977 for the abolition of rates. In its place, and funded by taxation measures, came the rate support grant. One fundamental flaw in the rate support grant is the method by which it is assessed. It is assessed from the baseline of 1977 but since then many houses have been built in local authority areas for which the local authorities do not get any recognition or subvention. Indeed, Fianna Fáil have reduced very dramatically the rate support grant during the period they have been in government since 1987. The Taoiseach and the Government kept one promise which was made before the 1987 general election, and that was to abolish the land tax.

In 1983 the Supreme Court found that the PLV system was unconstitutional in terms of assessing the amount which farmers should pay but did not suggest that farmers should not pay a local charge. The Coalition Government of 1982-87 introduced a land tax. This land tax was welcomed by small farmer organisations. In many cases farmers were paying very large sums to accountants and at the end of the day found they had no tax liability. Farmers have said to me they would much prefer to pay the money they were paying to accountants to local authorities. I am aware of a very large holding in my own constituency of 4,000 acres where the owner of that property is not paying a penny to the local authority while the widow in the nearby village is paying water charges, admittedly at a reduced rate because of waiver. There is an injustice here and an imbalance also because Waterford County Council have a very low commercial rates base. The agricultural rates were the major part of their finance each year. Other county councils have a very large commercial rates base. The rate support grant was adjusted to take into account the revenue lost to local authorities because of the Supreme Court decision and this was very damaging to local authorities such as Waterford County Council because of the cutbacks made by Fianna Fáil to the rate support grant.

It ill becomes Fianna Fáil to take up the moral high ground and to treat this House to a display of pseudo statesmanship. In the eighties they acted in a reckless and opportunistic way in an all-out run for power, and having got that power they made U-turns in every direction. I put it to the Minister that Fianna Fáil have done more damage in the eighties to local government by bringing the system and the councils into disrepute than any other agency has done in the history of the State. I would ask the Minister and his colleagues on the Fianna Fáil backbenches not to lecture the Opposition.

In dealing with some of the provisions of the Bill we are told that there will be a regional tier. This has been lauded to the high heavens by those on the Government benches. Let us cast our minds back a little. It was this very Government that abolished the RDOs.

Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Barr
Roinn