Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Cathaoirleach for the invitation. Prior to my election to the Dáil in 2005, I had been a county councillor since 1991 and a town councillor since 1988. If Deputy Canney is feeling old, he can imagine how I am feeling. I have come to the very firm conclusion that there cannot be Oireachtas reform without local government reform. A piecemeal approach cannot be taken; the broad political spectrum has to be examined. Otherwise, all we will get are tweaks. Our political system is far too centralised. There it too much localism at the national level. There is a power imbalance in local government that makes it more akin to a system of local administration than one of local government. The Council of Europe was highly critical in its independent report last year. It found that “although Ireland is a solid democracy, it remains one of the most centralised countries in Europe” and noted that “there is still a lot to be done before local self-government in Ireland is on par with other European countries”. As a starting point in looking at local democracy, we have to accept that we do not have local government. If we start there, we will have a chance.

Like many of our institutions, our local government system was inherited and then modified rather than radically reformed. There was a deep suspicion of local government following the foundation of the State and that control element really set the scene for the future. The Green Paper produced during the term of the 2007-11 Government was remarkably candid about this even at that stage. It reached some major conclusions that were completely bypassed and that are well worth revisiting.

We must ask ourselves what we want local government to do. In the UK, Sir Michael Lyons was commissioned to do an independent review of the UK's local government system some years back. He concluded that "place-shaping", "the creative use of powers and influence to promote the general well-being of a community and its citizens" should be the primary purpose of local government. I totally agree with him on that. It is therefore not surprising that the level of the municipal district is where councillors feel they do the most meaningful work. What has been specified as the role of place-shaping is what is happening but we need to see that built on. Functions and funding must be expanded and there must be a greater level of discretion for councillors.

I was impressed by the new urban living project conducted by the sociology department of NUI Maynooth years ago. It studied four emerging suburbs and satellite towns. The study found that local residents' attachment to a place came down to four main factors: the built and natural environment, the cultural character of life in the area, the quality of informal and associational life and elective belonging, the reasons people have chosen to live where they do. This reinforces the point that place-shaping is key. People relate to where they have elected to live. In considering the structures of our local government system, we need to acknowledge that counties and cities have multiple identities. Senator Wall is present. We served on a council together and know that there is a world of difference between Athy and Leixlip. The functional areas are very different and have very different identities. It is exactly the same in cities, which are really a necklace of villages. Ballymun and Rathgar are worlds apart. They have different identities and those different identities can be focused on to a greater degree at the municipal district level. We are not good at institution building but we have built some very good institutions in a more informal way such as the GAA, the credit union movement and tidy towns associations, all of which allow for flexibility and creativity at local level. Their identities are not at the county level but at a sub-county level. That is one of the big points we need to take if looking at building local democracy.

People identify with counties even though they are not uniquely Irish. The country was shired between the 12th and 17th centuries as a measure of control. They are not the greatest means of local administration. In a reasonably modern context, the old Dublin County Council was broken up into three local authorities. In the North, local government is not administered by county. The sky does not fall in if local government is not based on counties. We need to realise that. The point I am making is that affiliation to place is really important.

We currently have a very little-known regional tier of local government. It is little-known because it is not directly elected. Balanced regional development is a national aspiration but we are relying on luck or goodwill to deliver it. We do not have a mechanism to deliver it. Let us imagine if we had a functioning tier of regional authorities that were directly elected, that had a range of functions and resources appropriate to them and that had input and responsibility as regards, for example, the delivery of the national development plan. It would also benefit from economies of scale. That could be transformative.

They are the two levels that will be most important if we are to build a real system of local government. When are we going to cut the umbilical cord? When are we going to stop this excessively centralised control that is holding us back? There is an old joke. A tourist arrives in Ireland and asks for directions. The answer is "Well sir, if you want to get there, I would not start from here." This is a real challenge. I could go on about the funding of local government. I have done a lot of work as to how the metric Deputy Canney referred to is worked out and must say that the more complicated you make something, the more you get away with. It really needs to be addressed but I was just looking at the structure.