Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 18 May 2011

Vol. 732 No. 4

Adjournment Debate

Local Authority Boundaries

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to raise this very important matter. I acknowledge that the Minister for the Environment Community and Local Government has seen fit to come in to answer the debate.

Tonight I reiterate my opposition to a boundary extension into County Clare. There is no justifiable reason for Limerick City to extend into County Clare. There is no justifiable reason for County Clare to sacrifice a portion of our lands to resolve a problem which clearly does not exist. The simple fact is this proposal is unwarranted and would create more problems than it would solve. We in the Banner County are a very proud people. Indeed, I am a proud Clare man, born and bred. County Clare is steeped in history, heritage and tradition. If a boundary extension into County Clare were to be granted, it would rob people of their identity, of their link to where they are from, their very history and heritage.

The primary proposal put forward in the Limerick local government review is that there should be one local governance structure to manage Limerick city and Limerick county. The people of Clare have absolutely no problem with this proposal, but the people of Clare have a major issue with the plan to expand the Limerick city boundary into County Clare. We are told by the Limerick local government review group that its motivation to seek a boundary extension into County Clare is in order to create a critical mass of population which will in turn improve the prospects of attracting foreign direct investment.

This idea is fine in theory but is not grounded in reality. Changing a line on a map does not create a population. The people already exist and the critical mass already exists, but we simply live in different counties. Placing 3,000 Clare people into Limerick will not sort out our financial woes. However, it will create bad feeling, division, resentment and bitterness. It is very clear the people of Clare are very much opposed to a boundary extension. I applaud the efforts of the Clare against the Boundary Extension Committee under the chairmanship of Jim Gully. This group was formed in 1996 and took a survey at the time which resulted in 90% of residents living in Westbury, Shannon Banks, Meelick and Parteen expressing a deep desire to remain in County Clare under the jurisdiction of Clare County Council. In recent times Clare against the Boundary Extension Committee has organised very successful public demonstrations which have received massive support, including the support of every political party in the county.

If we are to pull ourselves out of the economic disaster zone in which our country finds itself, we need to work together. In the same way, there is no reason a better level of co-operation between the local authorities in County Clare, Limerick city and Limerick county cannot take place. This approach would result in a better quality of public service being delivered. There is no reason public services cannot be shared to a much greater extent. A joint effort between local authorities in Counties Clare and Limerick on the delivery of public services is a far better option than changing county boundaries to solve a problem that does not exist.

I acknowledge the forthright approach to this issue by the new Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, which is in deep contrast to the efforts of the former Minister, Mr. Gormley. In the short time the Minister, Deputy Hogan, has held his brief he has facilitated meetings with representatives from Limerick city, Limerick county and County Clare. As he moves towards a decision on the Limerick local government review group report I know the Minister will take on board the genuine and deeply held opposition in County Clare to any boundary change. I am appealing to the Minister to drop any of the proposals to grant a boundary extension from Limerick city into County Clare. The solution must be an insistence on a far greater level of co-operation between the local authorities of Counties Clare and Limerick which would not interfere in any way with county boundaries. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell the House when he expects to make a formal decision on the report.

They would take their hurlers though.

I thank Deputy Carey for raising this matter. As the House is aware, the issue of a boundary extension for Limerick city forms one element only of what is a complex and challenging set of circumstances in the city and county and the wider mid-west region. Limerick city, in particular, has faced obvious socioeconomic challenges. The population at the heart of the urban area has been in decline, the city itself has experienced pronounced deterioration, unemployment levels have been consistently above the national average and severe levels of deprivation have existed in certain areas. In addition, political and administrative leadership in the region has lacked cohesiveness and has been unable to contribute as effectively as it should to addressing these difficulties.

Against this backdrop, the report of the Limerick local government committee on the most appropriate local government arrangements for the city and county of Limerick — the Brosnan report — was published in September 2010. The report concluded that the needs of the people of Limerick are not being well served by the existence of two separate councils and that the only fully satisfactory resolution of the issues involved is through the creation of an integrated local authority under the leadership of a single elected council and single management structure.

The Brosnan report makes a strong case for new governance arrangements. A unified Limerick local authority would introduce a single authority of scale with the strength, assets and capacity to meet Limerick's challenges. It would bring about a more cohesive and better integrated local government system for Limerick city and county. It would create potential for better value for money, eliminate duplication and free up financial and human resources for critical projects such as the revitalisation of Limerick's city centre, regeneration and the support of enterprise.

At a strategic level, there is a strong resonance between the Brosnan report and the report of the local government efficiency review group, as well as the Government's response to the national economic circumstances. The local government efficiency review group recommended the delivery of corporate services on a joint basis across contiguous local authority areas and joint management structures in order to generate scale efficiencies in local government structures. The review group recommended ten such joint administrative areas and stated that, at a minimum, Limerick city and county should be jointly administered.

On boundary alterations, the Brosnan report also recommended the incorporation of urban elements of County Clare within the city area of the new merged city and county. The report proposed the inclusion of the housing estates of Shannon Banks and Westbury, and adjacent developments, which are a de facto part of the urban fabric of Limerick city, in addition to that part of the University of Limerick campus which is north of the Shannon. I have an open mind on the Clare aspect of the Brosnan recommendations. I can certainly see logic to it in terms of the overall shape of the city, ensuring that possible future development proposals are appropriately addressed. However, I am also aware of the counter arguments, some of which have been made by the Deputy.

I recognise the proposal does not enjoy the same degree of support as other aspects of the report, and it is probably not as essential to the core issues dealt with in the report as the Limerick city and county aspect. The detachment of a portion of the functional area of one county authority and its incorporation into another would involve legal and administrative complexity. In any event, there needs to be an effective arrangement to ensure the efficient discharge of local government functions in the areas in question so as to deal with any issues that might arise.

While there may be differing views as to the best approach, there is virtually universal agreement that circumstances should not be left as they are. I will certainly reflect on the Deputy's comments. I appreciate the consultation I have had with the representatives from Limerick and Clare and I will be bringing proposals to Government in the very near future to bring this matter to a conclusion one way or the other.

Departmental Programmes

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for affording me the opportunity to raise this matter and I thank the Minister for being present. I commend the Minister on the focus he has brought to his Department since 9 March; it is a refreshing change.

The Minister will be very familiar with the RAPID programme as he comes from a city in which it has been rolled out in a very successful manner. Coincidentally, it has been rolled out there for many years by a Ballina man, Mr. Ronan Ryan. Ballina was unfortunate in that it did not benefit from the programme in the early stages. The local authority decided not to apply, despite the fact that the town qualified on all grounds. In 2009, we received RAPID status and during 2010 an early implementation team was established involving consultation with community organisations and residents associations according to the format evidenced throughout the country.

In October last, a series of projects was submitted to the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs through Pobal to have RAPID funding sanctioned. The total value of the projects came to approximately €250,000 and they included a range of residents association projects and the refurbishment of a community centre. Also included was a CCTV project. CCTV was to be installed to assist in combating anti-social behaviour in all areas of the town. The project has been with Pobal since then. I asked the Minister a parliamentary question on this issue some weeks ago and he replied that no decision had yet been made.

The Minister is to visit the town on Friday and will be made very welcome. Can he clarify whether there is any funding left for the programme? If not and if he is still awaiting a decision thereon, would it be possible for him to meet representatives of the implementation committee when he visits? He knows the value of the projects and of the RAPID programme. The projects are focused and will directly tackle disadvantage in communities. The CCTV project, in particular, will benefit the entire town.

I thank the Minister for listening and look forward to his response.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to address the House on the subject of RAPID and the position regarding a number of new areas that have been brought into the programme in recent years, including Ballina, as mentioned by the Deputy. As the Deputy knows, since 1 May 2011 I have taken over responsibility for the community dimension.

The RAPID programme was first launched in February 2001 with the aim of prioritising and co-ordinating State assistance in some of the most deprived areas of Ireland. Originally, 25 areas were targeted and this number has now increased to 51, including five provincial towns that were designated new RAPID areas in May 2009. These are, Ballina, Dungarvan, Enniscorthy, Mullingar and Rathkeale.

In December 2009, the previous Government gave approval for disbursements from the Dormant Accounts Fund for a once-off measure up to the value of €1.25 million over 2010-11 for the five new provincial towns incorporated under RAPID. In late December 2010, Pobal, which advertises, appraises and recommends beneficiaries under various dormant accounts measures, submitted recommendations to the Department for the RAPID additionality measure.

In this context, it should be noted that dormant accounts funding is not "free money" to Departments. All Departments have to source the moneys upfront from within their normal allocated Votes to undertake dormant accounts programmes in exactly the same way as any other funding programmes. For that reason, dormant accounts programmes have to be regarded by Government within overall budgetary considerations in the same way as any other funding programme. If a Department's overall Vote is reduced, the scope for undertaking new dormant accounts programmes is, therefore, naturally curtailed.

Income from dormant accounts is not regarded as revenue for the Government. When moneys are spent from the fund, the Government must account for the fact that such moneys could be reclaimed by the account or policyholder in the future, so it is regarded as an accrued liability. This liability is recorded in the general Government debt, GGD, and future disbursements from the fund will also increase the GGD, which must also be taken into consideration by Government given the existing debt levels.

The priority in regard to dormant accounts funding in the current climate must be to ensure that existing contractual commitments can be met. I can confirm that eight projects have been prioritised by Pobal under the RAPID additionality measure for Ballina. These are currently being considered by my Department in the context of the reduced level of funding available in the current year, and also in the context of the review of expenditure that is being undertaken. Any decisions arising will be notified to all applicants as soon as possible. I have discussed with my Department, as recently as this morning, the five towns and the issues associated with funding for these new proposals with a view to making progress thereon. I do not expect to be in a position to make progress on the ambitious programme launched in 2010 but I will be considering the submissions of the towns to see what progress can be made on any aspects thereof. I have asked my Department to expedite the proposals in view of the fact that they relate to disadvantaged areas.

Road Network

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for selecting this item for discussion on the Adjournment and thank the Minister for taking it.

I appeal to the Minister to fast-track the Tipperary town bypass, which is part of the N24. It is vital to the economic and social development of the town, west Tipperary and south Tipperary generally. There is considerable frustration in the county, particularly in west Tipperary, as a result of the considerable delays relating to the project. It has been ongoing for very many years and was promised by successive Governments.

Tipperary Town Council, South Tipperary County Council and Oireachtas Members for Tipperary South have been meeting Ministers and Department officials about the bypass for 12 years or more, yet the very important project has not been commenced. It is effectively the link between Limerick and Rosslare. It is vital to the economic and social development of the county.

The main street of Tipperary town is choked with traffic every day. Business is affected. The health and safety of the population is affected on an ongoing basis. Tipperary town is a RAPID town and has very high unemployment. It had high unemployment even during the Celtic tiger years. The bypass of the town is vital to business and economic development in the town and south Tipperary generally.

There was a positive cost-benefit analysis of the project. The environmental impact statement is being prepared, as are the compulsory purchase orders. I appeal to the Minister to fast-track the project urgently. If we are to proceed as we are doing at present, it could be more than six years before it will be completed.

I reply in this debate on behalf of my colleague the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Leo Varadkar. I thank Deputy Healy for raising the matter on the Adjournment and for the opportunity to address the issues involved.

The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport has responsibility for overall policy and funding relating to the national roads programme. The construction, improvement and maintenance of individual national roads is a matter for the National Roads Authority, NRA, under the Roads Acts 1993 to 2007 in conjunction with the local authorities concerned. The NRA has informed the Minister that the present situation with this project is that the N24 Pallasgreen to Cahir scheme, which includes the bypass of Tipperary town, now incorporates the N24 Pallasgreen to Bansha scheme and the N24 Cahir to Bansha scheme. Consultants have been appointed to progress the environmental impact statement for the scheme and it is anticipated that this will be ready for publication later this year. The allocation for this work in 2011 is €456,000.

The Minister, Deputy Leo Varadkar, understands the Deputy's concern for the development and growth of the town of Tipperary, as I do, given that I am a frequent traveller in that direction. However, in the funding of national road schemes such as this it must be emphasised that progress on particular road schemes will be very much dependent on the availability of funds within a reduced capital budget. I am not in a position to say any more than that this evening. The environmental impact statement and planning for the scheme should be advertised later year.

The Dáil adjourned at 8.55 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 19 May 2011.
Barr
Roinn