Local Government Reform: Motion (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by Senator Hederman on Wednesday, 11 December 1991:

That Seanad Éireann calls on the Government to sign and ratify the UN Charter on Local Self-Government so that:

(i) power resides with the people where it rightfully belongs, and

(ii) decisions are taken by the tier of government nearest to the people,

Which would ensure that the Structural Funds allocated to Ireland are maximised and put to their most effective use as determined locally, for the benefit of the Irish people.

Debate resumed on the following amendment:

To delete all words after "Seanad Éireann" and substitute the following:

"supports the action being taken by the Government to reform and strengthen the local government system and notes the intention of the Government to keep the position in relation to the European Charter of Local Self-Government under consideration in the light of progress with the local government reform programme."

—(Senator Foley.)

Mrs. Jackman

I referred last week to the Structural Funds and access for local authorities. I will refer again briefly to Bruce Millan who, as we know, is a member of the Commission responsible for regional policies. He stressed that partnership was a requirement introduced by the Community Support Framework Programme 1989-93. He also stressed the necessity for close involvement between regional and local bodies and the Commission in planning and implementing development measures in local areas. At a public meeting in Limerick he stated that unless there is direct access from the regions to the Commission in Brussels, the whole area of development would not fit into the principle of subsidiarity. My understanding is that unless we do something ourselves nationally, we may be answerable to the Commission and certain criteria would be put in place to ensure that direct accessing would be obligatory. People may say we cannot have a democratic deficit but those were the words of Bruce Millan. Rudolf Luster, a German MEP who spoke at the Jean Monet lecture in the University of Limerick made a similar statement.

Although the UK has some element of regionalisation as regards the highlands and islands, Ireland and the UK are the only two countries out of step with the rest of Europe in this regard. We have a great number of young people, and I wonder if there is a correlation between that statistic and unemployment.

We have now a new Minister for the Environment. He is not in this Chamber today but the Minister of State, Deputy Harney, has attended Local Authority Members Association — LAMA — conferences and acknowledged their existence by her presence, and I would like the Minister, Deputy O'Hanlon, to recognise that association. He will be lobbied by his own party because the chairman of that association, Willie McKenna, is from his area.

I do not understand the notion that because they are regarded as a trade union body they may pose some sort of threat. I represent the Labour Panel through ICTU and I do not see any threat from LAMA. Will the Minister of State, Deputy Harney, ask the Minister, Deputy O'Hanlon, to recognise LAMA because their objectives are normal. They want to uphold, protect and extend the interests of elected members, cooperate with and assist existing bodies representing local authorities, for example, the General Council of County Councils, municipal authorities, and so on, and promote the training and education of councillors in order to provide an efficient service to the general public. Those are legitimate and normal aims. they are in no way sinister. Therefore, I ask the Minister to recognise the Local Authority Members Association. Since the Members of that Association pay their dues, there would not be a huge financial commitment involved. I am only asking for a recognition of that body. The Minister of State, Deputy Harney, attended a conference in Westport and was made very welcome. Unfortunately, the previous Minister, Deputy Flynn, declined to recognise LAMA, although previous Ministers for the Environment were happy to accept that they are there fighting for the cause of local authorities.

Mrs. Bennett

The motion before the House calls on the Government to sign and ratify the European Charter of Local Self-Government. One would assume, under these auspices, that the Government have been somewhat remiss in their duties with regard to policy at local level when, in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Ireland is not alone in delaying the signing of this Charter. In fact, our nearest neigbour, Britain, has also yet to sign. One can often accuse the UK of being somewhat conservative with regard to European affairs, however, perhaps in this case a little caution should be exercised. Other countries which have yet to sign are Cyprus and Malta and various Eastern European countries. Signing the Charter is purely voluntary and as yet there is not much to be examined and reviewed in the fine print.

The European Charter of Local Self-Government was drawn up within the Council of Europe by a committee of governmental experts under the authority of the Steering Committee for Regional and Municipal Matters on the basis of a draft proposed by the Standing Conference of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe. The member states of the Council of Europe opened the Charter for signature in 1985. As the guardian of human rights and the upholder of the principles of democratic Government, the Council of Europe was the obvious structure with which to frame such a Charter. The primary purpose of the Charter is to notify and standardise the safeguards regarding the rights of local authorities, giving the citizen the opportunity to contribute to this or the local environment.

By signing the Charter we would give a more formal declaration of commitment to local government reform. However, what really matters is the determination of the Government to reforming local government. The present Government have shown their own firm commitment under the Local Government Bill, 1991. The development and implementation of a comprehensive programme of local government reform has been one of the Government's priorities. The Government decided on a comprehensive strategy and detailed arrangements for a programme of local government reform to strengthen local democracy, devolve additional functions to local authorities where practical and secure the role of local authorities in the overall democratic process. Even without this Charter, the Government's Bill will make a considerable contribution to achieving the overall objectives, ensuring that local authorities exercise a greater role in local development and respond more effectively to the needs and problems in their own areas. In addition the local government Bill will provide the framework within which further desirable structural changes can be effected during the next few years.

This reform programme will take several years to implement and will be put in place on a phased basis. This current Bill is only the first stage of the process but it has still made some important headway in revamping the whole structure and mechanism of local government. The Government aim to stengthen local democracy by devolving additional functions and powers to the various local authorities and by consolidating the role and function of those local authorities in the total democratic process. The emphasis on local authorities will be to co-ordinate activities between the authorities and other public agencies working at local level, to involve local communities in the affairs of their locality and to harness local initiative and ideas. It will also involve delivering services and discharging functions within their area of responsibility in keeping with local priorities and being flexible and adaptable while still giving value for money in terms of the cost effective use of public moneys and resources entrusted to them.

Again, I reiterate that it is not the signing of the European Council's Charter that is in question but the determination and the commitment of the Government in effecting genuine reform in all forms of local government. There can be no doubt that we are already well down the road to true reform. Already, the ultra-vires rule has been effectively rescinded by a general competence Act. The reorganisation of the Dublin areas into separate county structures has been undertaken. The greater devolution of powers and functions to the local authorities is now on the Statute Books. Powers relating to planning, especially in the operation of “section 4” are being modified. To implement a “section 4” three quearters of the total membership of the local authority will have to vote in favour and the notice of motion to propose the resolution will have to be signed by three quarters of the members from the electoral areas concerned.

As I have previously said, the programme is one of great scale and complexity. Therefore it must be undertaken in a planned and careful manner. Phase one has already been implemented under the Local Government Bill, 1991, and the further reforms will follow in due course. By adopting this phase by phase process the whole procedure can be monitored stage by stage on an ongoing basis, ensuring that such a huge undertaking can be accomplished successfully.

The text of the Council of Europe Charter is laid out in 18 articles, many of which have already been provided for under the Local Government Bill, 1991. For example, in Article 3, paragraph 1, the phrase "Under their own responsibility" stresses that local authorities should not be limited to merely acting as agents of higher authorities. This is very much in keeping with the Government's policy of devolving more powers to local authorities and giving them further autonomy as aforementioned.

The intention of the Charter is that local authorities should have a broad range of responsibilities which are capable of being carrried out at local level. These responsibilities are clearly defined under Article 4. The Government's statement issued on 7 March 1991 made it clear that it is this Government's intention to strengthen local democracy and to devolve additional functions to local authority where practicable.

Article 5 covers proposals for changes in its boundries. Articles 6 deals with the administrative and management structures of the local authorities concerned. Article 8 is concerned with the supervision of the activities of the local authorities by other levels of Government, such as powers to annual a local authority decision, accounting controls and so on.

Article 9 covers financial concerns, and Article 10 includes provisions for joint co-operative ventures between authorities and also deals with efficiency. Article 11 rules on judicial remedy. Articles 12 and 13 qualify the reconciliation of constitutional or practical impediments faced by many states in subscribing to particular aspects of the Charter. Article 14 gives importance to the fact that information should be made available to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe concerning any changes of legislation or other measures which have an impact on local autonomy as defined by the Charter. Articles 15 to 18 are based on the model final clauses for conventions and agreements concluded within the Council of Europe.

While there can be no doubt that the Charter has much merit, I move that the motion presented to the House today be dismissed on two counts. First, the Charter is a very involved and complicated document which will require an indepth study of all the fine print before it should be considered. If our nearest neighbour, Britain, is reticent about signing, surely we owe it to ourselves to proceed with caution and to take time to truly evaluate the full implications of any commitments we may be entering into.

Secondly, as I have pointed out before, the Government have already given a firm commitment to local government reform by introducing the Local Government Bill, 1991. Although we have only just implemented the first stage, more progressive stages will be introduced on a phase by phase basis. Many of the features of the Bill are in keeping with the themes included in the Charter — for example, the devolution of power and so on. Therefore, as we are in the early stages of our own local government reform, we should perhaps, keep an eye on the Council's Charter. It would not be perhaps appropriate to adopt it for the moment, but I am not ruling out the possibility of reconsidering the position in the future.

Mr. Cullen

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion. Indeed, I welcome the fact that this motion has been presented to the Seanad because it has given us an opportunity to focus on one of the most fundamental and important areas of government in any country, particularly this country, and that is the area of local government. Since the beginning, we in the Progressive Democrats have been outlining the many areas in need of substantial reform in the context of power, democracy and control at local government level. It is clear that over the last number of years that authority control and power have diminished and that local democracy — the people elected to represent those in their own areas — does not function to its full potential. It is for that reason the Progressive Democrats have no problem with the motion before us and, indeed, will support it.

We do not have any problem with the amendment; but I think it is time we started to deal with the specifics of local government, what it is about and the direction in which it should be heading. We have found over the last number of years, when putting forward ideas and suggestions, that it takes far too long to bring specific points to a suitable conclusion, and time is running out. We, as politicians in both Houses, must begin to accept the realities of local government stand over and vote for what we believe in without skirting around the issues by all-embracing sort of motions like rejecting sin and so on. We have to get down to specific issues and consider how local government will operate in the future.

I urge the Government to make the final decisions with regard to district councils. In my interpretation of the Programme for Government this is already agreed, and, in that context there is a need for local elections to go ahead next year. The town commissioners and the urban district councils are on an extended run, so to speak. There must be elections in those areas next year. We should make it clear that we mean business by establishing new district councils and having a whole new entity in existence in local government from next year on.

The Charter as set out is reasonable and contains many interesting points. However, the whole thrust of it is about democracy at local level and how that democracy can be achieved with authority and control by people who are put in charge locally. This is something I have had a strong view on for many years. That process was initiated by this Government; but it must be speeded up, become more specific, more tangible and must be readily available to people in their local areas.

Many of us in both Houses are presently going through the trauma of trying to pass estimates at various local councils, county councils and corporations and we see at first hand the strangulation of local government. The removal of rates here began the process of the total emasculation of local democracy. The proof is there for everybody to see; and to continue to blame somebody else for that will not change the picture. We need action, a legislative approach, new forums and a new dynamism for making those ideas a reality at local level.

We, in the Progressive Democrats, are totally committed to bringing about those changes. They are not just aspirational; we want to see them become a reality, a reality that I have no doubt will be of tremendous benefit at local level. Local government is totally under-valued in this country. We have a mania for centralised control at a whole range of levels, but particularly at administrative governmental level. The restrictive and inhibitive influence of the Departments of Finance, Environment and others on the activities of local government is obvious. I am not blaming the staff of those Departments; I am simply referring to the difficulties which exist. If local authorities had more control and more say, a great deal of the burden would be removed from Government. In this way the bureaucracy that the Government tend to get bogged down in would be removed from them and dealt with at local level. At times urgent decisions need to be dealt with locally, but we have hampered and restricted that process. We have not allowed it to develop and grow and as a result there has been a massive growth in local organisations, such as the residents' associations and so on, trying to represent their views and needs. The perceived need is not being answered at local level and the real need, not just the perceived need, of the people to have access to power and control at local level is far too restricted.

Another major bone of contention I have — and this is quite explicit in the Charter — is that I do not understand or accept that in order to do business at EC level applications for projects and so on have to go through the Department of Finance. Obviously, on major national projects such as those dealing with roads etc., should have an overall cohesive programme so that everybody is not doing their own thing. But surely we could cut through the red tape surrounding many projects and allow people at local level direct access to the decision-makers at European level. Those are the people who conceived the ideas and therefore, they should be allowed implement them. There will always be people involved at local level, so there is no need to create this extra tier, in the centre for so many of those projects. It is nonsensical and detrimental.

Countries such as Spain and Portugal have an advantage in that they cut through the red tape and allow regionalised access to funds at European level. We must do likewise. If we do not, we will continue to negate and reduce the influence, the positive influence, that councillors, county councillors and, hopefully in the not too distant future, district councillors can have at local level. Why do we constantly maintain this stranglehold? It is not in the public interest nor is it in the interest of democracy that that situation should prevail. The Progressive Democrats have identified specific areas where changes are required. Having identified those changes we should stand over them and see them through.

I accept that budget constraints and major national and international problems can at times mean that the need for this type of reform is placed further down on the Government's agenda. That should not be the case, because the benefits of local government reform can also be retrospective. Local government reform can be of benefit to the Government. Matters, such as those concerning widows and widowers, which are at present essentially controlled by central Government could be, dealt with efficiently, speedily and without any trauma at local level. This would mean central Government would be free to deal with major projects.

In the preamble to this Charter it is stated that the local authorities are one of the main foundations of any democratic regime. I do not think anybody should have any difficulty with that. Until such time as local authorities, by whatever means, have the authority to raise funds locally we will never see the type of power, control and ability to act that is required at local level. Too many successive Governments have ignored this issue. What takes place in other countries is irrelevant. We have a direct and a very definite problem in this area and time is running out.

It is time the Government presented a well defined local government reform package which permits local government to raise its own finance, there should be a quid pro quo approach in terms of direct taxation nationally. This Government and the previous Government have reduced direct personal taxation substantially in the last number of years. The argument regarding double taxation is wearing out.

The public should be informed that local government reform will involve extra costs. I believe people outside this building would rather see some of their hard earned cash go directly into the local economy, but the present method is not a fair one. The longer we prevaricate and talk about it and do nothing, the more ineffective local government will become.

The thrust of the motion before us is that power should reside with the people and that decisions be taken by the tier of government nearest the people. Nobody can argue with that. This would ensure that the Structural Funds allocated to Ireland are put to their most effective use as determined locally for the benefit of the people. Surely it is time we stood over such motions and encouraged decision-making at local level. This motion is a signal for us to stand up and be specific and for the Government to deliver on the agreement entered into in the Programme for Government. We in the Progressive Democrats want to see this happen. We want both parties in Government to accept that and get down to business.

We have a new Minister for the Environment and I wish him well in his portfolio. I now call on him this evening to face up to the realities in local government, to set his agenda in the context of the Programme for Government and deliver on it. He will have the support of the majority of people in public life and of the people they represent if he moves forward on that agenda and deliver on it.

I hope we can look forward to immediate action in the context of the new district councils being part of the local government elections next year and that all of the other issues will be dealt with in local government reform.

Mr. Finneran

I welcome the Minister to the House and I also welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this motion. First, I want to sketch in the briefest possible terms some of the key events in the evolution of our system of local government and the reason why reform and reorganisation of that system is now necessary and should proceed. On the foundation of the State we inherited a system of local government which was in large measure a product of a series of 19th Century Statutes, culminating in the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1890 which consolidated the principal structural features of our local government system. That was 100 years ago. Since independence, our local government system has been adapted and extended in a number of respects. Certain functions have declined in importance or been removed — health services for example. Others have increased and may new ones have been added in the environment, planning, development and other areas. The evolution of the functional responsibilities, adapting to meet the needs and demands of the day has continued under a succession of statutes up to the present time. A management system was in operation in all the authorities by the early forties, with various key functions and decisions reserved as the exclusive prerogative of the elected members. There had been no significant change in the organisational or structural arrangements since then until the recent Local Government Act, 1991.

Overall reform and reorganisation has been a consistently recurring theme in the local government area for several decades. It is a debate which has displayed some remarkably consistent features. First, opinions as to the shape and direction in which reform should take conflict sharply. Second, it seems that there has always been an inverse relationship between the volume of discussion about reform and the extent of the action resulting from this. Third, whenever it looked as if decisions and real action might be about to be taken, this proved to be an illusion and a further period of stagnation ensured. It quickly became clear to me that if progress were to be made, a new approach adopted and the interest of local government properly served, the reform question should not be treated as a political football. In order to achieve the desired results, proposals had to be formulated on the basis of a thorough consideration of all views and they should have the support of a solid, across-the-board consensus. In fairness, this is precisely what the Government set out to achieve in their approach to local government reform.

An Oireachtas all party committee was initially proposed. This seemed to offer the best prospects of securing the desired consensus. Regrettably however, this proposal did not seem to meet with favour with all sides. The main Opposition party refused to participate. It would have been easy to turn aside and allow local government once again to slide off the political agenda, but, the Government were determined and pressed ahead with developing reform proposals, through alternative mechanisms. A Cabinet sub-committee was established and an advisory expert committee was set up to assist them. Thus the Government ensured that the issue would receive due priority by being considered at the highest level possible. At the same time, a wide range of review processes and local interests became involved and interested parties were given the opportunity of making submissions. I am pleased to say that the mechanism has worked extremely well. The advisory expert committee, which received a large number of submissions from interested individuals and organisations, completed their report before Christmas 1990. As Senators will be aware, the Local Government Act, 1991, was passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas earlier this year.

Local government involves every man, woman and child. It affects their daily lives and surroundings and provides for local services they need and use. National government needs to recognise this, and provide a framework of principles in which local democracy can flourish. Those of us involved in the local authority system and who have spent some years in it, will recognise this. National goverment should safeguard the rights of local authorities which are closest to the citizen and give him the opportunity of participating effectively in the making of decisions affecting this everyday environment.

The framework of principles should embody administrative and financial independence of local authorities and a conviction that the degree of self-government enjoyed by local authorities may be regarded as the touchstone of genuine democracy. It should specify the need for a legal foundation for local government, defining the concept and establishing the principles governing the nature and scope of local authority powers.

Local authorities should control their administive structures and have adequate financial resources at their disposal at levels which do not impair their autonomy. Government should provide a set of structures and finance and local authorities should insist on them. These must have constitutional or at least statutory back-up. In this country local government has no constitutional back-up at national level and no institutional back-up at European level. Granted, there is an attempt at the moment, at European level, in institutionalise the local government system and bring it under the amended Treaty of Rome.

The present system excludes the opportunity to raise finance in real terms. This is the crunch for local authorities. Also, they have no great discretion over the spending of their moneys. This can be taken as an easy option by local authorities and their members as has happened in recent times but it denies them the possibility of taking responsibilities in their functional area. It leaves them open to a situation where it can be justly attributed to them that they neither have the will nor the way to be involved in serious financial decisions and that their role can be classified as a rubber stamp exercise.

If local authority members feel they have a role to play in determining future development in their functional area, then they will not alone have to express that, but they will have to show a willingness and a determination to be masters of their own destiny, in indicating to Government that they are entitled and are in a position to collect and administer local finances, both in the local and national interests. They must convince the people and the national Government of their commitment on this matter.

Local authority members, in recent years, have found their control over the expenditure of their budget is so insignificant that it is an insult to their public and voluntary contributions to the dayto-day running of the local authorities. I will not go into the financing of local authorities but a system of financing must be brought in. Local authorities will never have autonomy, they will never have the discretion they look for unless they raise their own finances. They are not getting a fair crack of the whip as things stand.

I will give one example regarding the social welfare system. Local authorities throughout the country subsidise social welfare payments. County managers sign waiver orders, differential rents and so on, on a weekly and on a yearly basis throughout the country. There is no recoupment from the Department of Social Welfare. Why should a local authority have to provide and pay for such services?

I have thought about the reasons this motion was put down. It seems to be a cynical exercise because, with one exception, the people who have put their names to it are not members of local authorities and have never been elected by the people. They are elected to this House on an antiquated system, possibly the most undemocratic system in this country, and perhaps the most undemocratic in the world. Yet, they put down this motion to instruct those who are elected by members of county councils and county boroughs. They have put down this motion to tell the Members of this House who were elected by councillors how they should do their business. It is easy for these people in their academic penthouse, to pontificate. In fairness, the first signature on the motion is Senator Hederman's but she is the only one of those who put their names to the motion who is an elected member of a local authority. It is ironic that, from their restricted electoral halls far from the cut and thrust of politics, they should tell us our business. Few of them would be well versed or have experience in that area. The Charter on local self government is a fine document, but signature of it will not benefit local authorities unless there is a will among local authority members themselves, and also in Government, for the whole system and structure to be changed so that they can raise their own finance and make decisions about them. We have not reached that situation.

Mrs. Hederman

Why can we not reach it? What are you doing about it?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Finneran without interruption.

Mr. Finneran

What the Government and my party have done, after years of dilly-dallying by other Governments, is to bring in the Local Government Act of 1991. It is now law.

Mrs. Hederman

Will they ever implement it?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Finneran without interruption.

Mr. Finneran

The Act is already law. Some sections have yet to be brought in but it is the foundation on which the reorganisation and reform of local government can be based, and will prove to be so over the next number of years.

Mrs. Hederman

How many?

Mr. Finneran

This motion is a cynical exercise by people who are not elected by the people, who are not elected by local authority members and who just want to cause embarrassment to the Government of the day. I have no intention of supporting it because it is not genuine. I support the amendment.

Pól Ó Foighil

Is ceist an-tábhachtach í seo, ar ndóigh, agus muid ag caint faoi rialtas áitiúil, agus céard a chiallaíonn rialtas áitiúil dúinn agus céard atáimid in ann a dhéanamh i gcomhthéacs na cumhachta a bhíonn ag rialtas áitiúil. Bhíomar ag caint faoi seo cheana, ar scor den Teach, maidir le vótáil don Teach seo. Tá vóta ag comhairleoirí contae a chuireann daoine isteach go dtí an Teach seo chun go mbeadh siad ionadaíoch don phobal a mbíonn siad ag caint ar a shon.

Baineann an rún atá os ár gcomhair go bunúsach le féinrialú pobail, is é sin pobal i gceantair éagsúla ar fud na tíre seo. Sa chairt atá faoinár mbráid anseo tá sé ráite gurb é mian an phobail, nó mian an CE go mbeadh an chumhacht, nó cuid áirithe den chumhacht, ar chaoi ar bith, le fáil ag an bpobal áitiúil. Faoin struchtúr atá ann faoi láthair, tá comhairlí contae, comhairlí baile agus coimisinéirí baile tofa go daonlathach ag muintir na hÉireann. Is iarracht é seo chun go mbeadh cumhacht acu ina gceantair féin. Ach an chaoi a bhfuil rudaí ag dul ar aghaidh le roinnt blianta anuas, tá an chumhacht ag imeacht ón gcomhairle contae to dtí an Rialtas láir ó chuireamar deireadh le bailiú rátaí agus go leor cúram eile de chuid na comhairle contae. Bhí siad in ann gníomhú ar a gconlán féin, roinnt airgid a chur i dtoll a chéile iad féin le caitheamh ina gcuid ceantar féin, ach fuaireamar réidh beagnach go huile is go hiomlán leis sin nuair a chuireamar deireadh le rátaí.

Anois, táimid ag teacht anseo ag olagón agus ag caoineadh gur tharla sé sin. Is é an toradh ar an scéal seo ná, an t-airgead a fhaighimid ar ais i bhfoirm dheontas nó block grants mar a thugtar orthu, níl siad sách mór ná iomlán chun go bhféadfaí leas ceart pobail a bhaint astu. Má thuigimse an rún i gceart, táimid ag caint faoi chumhacht a thabhairt don phobal áitiúil agus d'fhéadfaí an cineál smaoinimh sin a chur i gcomhthéacs na hEorpa, agus Maastricht a bhí faoi chaibidil againn inniu. Tá sé mar shainmhíniú in alt 23 den Single European Act go mbeadh cumhacht le fáil ag na hinstitiúidí áitiúla agus go dtabharfaí aitheantas do cheantiar áitiúla nó réigiúnacha.

Mura bhfuil deis ag réigiúin feidhmiú taobh istigh de na rialacha a bhfuilimid ag caint fúthu — agus go dtí seo táimid ag brath ar Bhaile Átha Cliath nó an Rialtas láir le hairgead a fháil le go bhféadfadh rialtas áitiúil gníomhú — is mó amach anseo a bheimid ag brath ar an Eoraip, mar is tríd an Eoraip, tríd an chomhtháthú seo — cohesion an focal a luaitear — a bheimid ag súil le hairgead a theacht isteach i gceantair thuaithe. Má leanan an modh oibre atá ann faoi láthair ní bheidh mórán ratha ar phobail tuaithe ná ar ionadaithe áitiúla mar bheidh greim i gcónaí ag an Rialtas láir i mBaile Atha Cliath ar aon chaiteachas a bheidh i gceist.

Táimid ag dul glan in aghaidh fhealsúnacht an Chomhphobail, an fhealsúnacht atá ann chun go bhféadfaimid airgead a chur ar fáil chun a chur ar chumas daoine a bheith páirteach i rialú a gceantar féin. Tá a fhios agam go bhfuil sé mar aidhm ag na Progressive Democrats go mbeadh rialtas ceantair ar bun agus thacóinn go mór leis sin mar is bealach é sin le go mbeadh baile agus tuath ag feidhmiú le chéile in aonad ceart riaracháin. Tóg ceann ar bith de na bailte atá ann mar chomhairle contae, Béal Átha na Slua, mar shampla. Ní bhaineann sé sin ach le taobh istigh den bhaile. Tá an baile sin go praiticiúil ag brath go hiomlán ar an cheantar timpeall air, ar an hinterland, ó thaobh maireachtála agus teacht isteach de. Ní thuigim cén fáth a bhfuil an riarachán polaitiúil scartha amach ó ghnéithe eacnamúla agus ón tíreolaíocht atá thart timpeall orthu. Caithfidh me a admháil go bhfuil sé ar intinn ag na Progressive Democrats feidhmiú de réir na moltaí i leith na hEorpa. Sin é an cuspóir atá acu.

Níl a fhios agam cé chomh gar is atá siad don mhian sin a bhaint amach, ach tá a fhios againn nach raibh aon toghcháin ann le haghaidh na gcomhairlí baile timpeal na tíre anuraidh agus cuireadh siar iad go dtí i mbliana. Níl a fhios agam an mbeidh reachtaíocht curtha tríd an Dáil agus an Seanad nó an amhlaidh go gcuirfear siar bliain eile í chun seo a chur i gcrích, nó an dtarlóidh sé go deo. Feicimse ar shlí amháin go mba chúnamh na toghcháin do láidriú féinrialtas áitiúil. Ach, arís, is beag an mhaith a leithéid a bheith ina Acht mura mbíonn cumhacht ann. Má tá sé i ndán go mbeidh athrú ar an chóras toghcháin do na comhairleoirí agus coimisinéirí baile seo, ba chóir go mbeadh na dualgais agus an chumhacht airgeadais atá ag dul leis seo ar fáil acu freisin.

Caithfimid machnamh a dhéanamh ar na cúrsaí rialtais seo agus sílim go raibh sé i gceist ag an Seandóir Hederman go mbeadh an chumhacht fanta agus lárnach don cheantar. Sin é díreach an polasaí agus an prionsabal ar a bhfuil an CE bunaithe. Ná déanaimis dearmad gur tháinig an sainmhíniú atá ar "chomhphobal"— pobal i gcomhar le chéile — ó Pascale, Iodáileach a bhí ina cheannródaí sna seascaidí agus sna seachtóidí maidir le féinrialú i gceantair réigiúnacha. Faoi láthair tá muintir na hOllainne á mholadh go mór, ach nílimid sásta sa tír seo aghaidh a thabhairt ar an téarma úd "réigiúnachas". Aisteach go leor, táimid á úsáid go mícheart; táimid ag caint ar réigiúin ach níl aon limistéar ann a d'fhéadfaí réigiún a thabhairt air.

Níl na ceantair áitiúla ann gur chóir go mbeadh an chumhacht acu faoin mBille nó faoin chairt seo. Muid féin, mar Rialtas agus mar dhaoine, a laghdaigh ár gcumhachtaí féin. Muid féin a bhain na rátaí de na comhairlí contae, a thug orthu dul i dtuilleamaí an Stáit. Muid féin anois atá ag cur deiridh leis na comhairlí baile agus nílimid sásta gníomhú go sciobtha chun an folúntas atá ann a líonadh. Tá an-deis againn go mórmhór mar tá Bille eile — an Bille rialtais nó toghcháin — ag teacht os ár gcomhair anseo tar éis na Nollag. Am an-fheiliúnach go deo é na socruithe atá i gceist ag na Progressive Democrats a thabhairt chun tosaigh freisin, ag tús na hathbhliana nuair a bheimid ag plé ceisteanna faoi vótaíocht agus thoghcháin agus na rialacha a bhaineann leo. Mar sin, ghlacfainn leis go mbaineann na rialacha ceannann céanna leis an meon atá ann i gcónaí le go mbeadh féinrialú an-láidir ann agus go mbeadh sé le feiceáil go bhfuil sé láidir sa tír seo.

Ní aontaím leis an Seanadóir Finneran, a bhí ag labhairt roimhe seo, a dúirt gurbh é an fáth gur cuireadh an rún seo síos ná go raibh daoine ann nach raibh tofa go háitiúil nó tofa ag a mhuintir féin. Tá an Seanadóir Hederman ina ball de Bhardas Bhaile Átha Cliath. Is bean í a bhfuil ansuim aici i gcúrsaí rialtas áitiúil. Déar fainn gur le dea-intinn agus le dea-ionspioráid a chuir sí an rún seo os ár gcomhair. Mar sin tacaím leis an moladh. Sa doiciméad seo tá na focail "áit ar bith gur féidir é a dhéanamh", is é sin, "where possible". Tá na focail "where possible" luaite go mion minic sa doiciméad seo.

Is é an pointe atá mise á dhéanamh ná gur fúinn féin atá sé, faoin Rialtais féin, rialtas áitiúil a chur i gcrích agus cumhacht a thabhairt dúinn go háitiúil inár gceantair féin. Má táimid dáiríre faoi sin, tá deis againn é a dhéanamh agus b'fhearr dúinn tosú anois sul má bhíonn aon toghchán nó aon reifreann ann le haghaidh Maastricht.