Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)

In that case, the issue is how local authorities and elected members look at what the council is doing financially — how it exercises its power. I have found in the past that they are very reluctant to exercise their power. I have always argued that there ought to be a finance committee that meets quarterly at least with the finance officers of a local authority to ensure that the budget is what it says it is and to go through all the financial proposals from each department in the council before the final proposal is put before councillors, which is happening as I speak. The problem is that councillors tend to pass the estimates, having been given a lead as regards particular projects they might be interested in, but they do not deal with matters in minute detail. I would like to see this happening and if that is the objective of the Minister's amendment, I have no problem with it. However, I have an issue as regards local government finances generally and value for money. One of the problems is that the auditing of the accounts is done by the local government auditor, but they are not presented or laid before the Committee of Public Accounts.

As a further step I would like to see, in terms of the transparency and openness of local authority funding and expenditure, that having gone through the democratic process of the council, it would be laid before the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts so that issues which specifically relate to value for money in local government might be examined. I do not know whether that is to be in the Minister's amendment, but I ask him to address that issue because it is very important that this should happen.

Another issue that has arisen relates to the additional provisions of the Bill, as referred to by the Minister. I will quote from his speech, but I am not sure whether the chambers of commerce have been consulted on this point. I understand he has had consultation as regards the Bill as a whole, but I do not know whether this particular issue was addressed.

Section 5 of the Bill provides that newly erected properties will be liable to pay a levy to local authorities from the date the properties are entered on the valuation list. This ends an effective "rating holiday" which existed because of the inflexibility of current arrangements and increases equity in the rating system.

The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I understood that over ten years one paid an increasing proportion of the final rateable levy. The first year 10% is paid, while 20% is paid the second year and so on. Is the Minister proposing to do away with that position? If so, I would be concerned. For example, in the context of a start-up business which might not have much money and obtains family support or a small loan within the local community, it would now be faced with full rateable valuation from day one. If that is what is being proposed, I am opposed to it on the grounds that it is a retrograde step.

Section 6 of the Bill provides an amendment to the Valuation Act 2001. I ask the Minister to explain those issues more clearly to me on Committee Stage. I will support the Bill on Second Stage but I would like clarity as regards those other proposals.

The last point I wish to make concerns an issue brought to my attention by Members in my party. They want clarity regarding where the Minister talks about the work that the BIDs might do so that they do not perform activities which at present are being done by the local authority. The point made to me by a number of Deputies was to the effect that the improvement or beautification of streets or footpaths in the business improvement district or on any lands buildings and other structures, such as the removal of graffiti, etc, is work which the local authority is obliged to carry out at present. The Deputies have asked me to query where the Minister draws the line. If it is a local authority with a poor rates base, as in some counties, will this be work, which should be done by a local authority which does not have the capacity to do it, that will fall on the business community? This is an important point and needs clarification.

Generally, I welcome the significant progress that can be made. I welcome that the chambers of commerce are behind the principle of the Bill and the innovation legislation it represents. I look forward to getting the clarifications I sought. I need them before I can support the Bill on Committee and further Stages.

See this speech in context