Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

While I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill, I cannot think of any other legislation to have come before the Dáil that has made me angrier than this measure. I cannot think of any legislation that is more ill-timed, inappropriate and pointless than this. When we look at the sorry state of our once proud and prosperous country, when we consider all the things that we should deal with in our national Parliament, and when I think of all the real concerns of those who depend on us to behave sensibly here, it is with complete disbelief that I see that a Minister - and, I suppose, the entire Cabinet - considers that a fifth mayor for Dublin is a priority for the Government.

The Minister, Deputy Gormley, is in the role of Nero, fiddling while Rome burns. He is demonstrating once again just how out of touch he is with the public mood and with what really concerns the general public. I have yet to meet any member of the public who thinks this Bill is a good idea. In its current form, it could not be worse. The public want jobs and they want to see the economy back on track. In addition, they want banks that will lend money rather than swallow it. They want an end to negative equity, a good health service and front line education and health services restored. They also want some stability and certainty, as well as a return to prosperity or at least some hope for the future. They do not want yet another sinecure or a further rake of quangos.

It is true that local government needs to be reformed. The Minister of State, Deputy Cuffe, is right to say that it is not working well. Anyone who has ever been a member of a local authority, or a member of the public observing the operation of councils, will recognise that there is room for improvement. When we compare our local authority structures to those in other countries, we can see that is so.

There is undoubtedly a place for a leadership figure to give strategic direction in Dublin. I agree with the principle of a mayor for the city, but it must come in the context of a complete overhaul of local government in the capital. This Bill will not achieve that.

Through the years, there have been repeated attempts to breathe life back into local government and give it the kind of role we see that it has in many other countries. The Minister of State mentioned cities in several countries that have good mayors, including Georges Frêche in Montpellier. Monsieur Frêche transformed Montpellier but it was a completely different kettle of fish to the kind of mayor we will get from this legislation. He was not the fifth elected mayor in that French city. He had a budget, political back-up and all the things that are required to deliver a proper service to the public. The mayor envisaged in this Bill will have none of those things.

Where was local government strong, respected and responsible? The first of these attempts in my time was the deconstruction of the old Dublin County Council into three local authorities, which gave us four Dublin local authorities for the Dublin area. Deputy Cyprian Brady referred to regional offices around Dublin which, I agree, represent an improvement in public services. That is an element of local government that will remain no matter what we do to reform the structures of elected bodies. A few years later, however, we saw that the devolution of powers to four Dublin local authorities was not the solution. We then got another solution entitled "Better Local Government", which gave us a further accretion of local bodies.

There were strategic policy committees, community pillars, more meetings, meetings about meetings, and meetings to tell others about the meetings they had. Meanwhile, officials, whose time to do any work was greatly diminished, were exhausted by the need to service these pointless meetings and meetings about meetings. It was, and still is, a total travesty. It was called "better local government", but it was not so. Our solution to those mistakes is to make more mistakes rather than to roll back the mistakes of the past. Local Government has become the greatest talking shop of all time. At least an bord snip nua had the gumption to state that this emperor had no clothes and suggested its elimination as a waste of time and money, further suggesting it was more akin to anarchy than its stated aim of making local government more democratic.

One mistake made throughout the years has been to see local government reform as being about changing structures only when in fact functions, powers, responsibilities and the budgets are important. These are the things which matter to those we are supposed to serve. This legislation simply confirms the previous trends of changing structures and assumes that setting up a new body will somehow transform local government and make it more democratic and meaningful. The Minister of State, Deputy Cuffe, spoke passionately about what is wrong with local government in Ireland generally and what is needed. He is correct and I agree with him in this regard. However, this legislation does not deliver and, in fact, makes the situation worse. He suggested the system of four Dublin local authorities was not working. Is the solution to have five? It cannot be; that makes no sense.

When it comes to structures, less is more. Reform of local government should consider a single body for Dublin with services provided locally and perhaps reflecting to some extent the local rate base in each area for spending, although there would have to be some distribution mechanism. However, this legislation fails completely in the lack of clear functions, powers and responsibilities for the news office. It would be sensible to have a single planning body, a single transportation authority for Dublin and a single waste authority. However, this legislation gives us none of these functions nor would it give these to any new, hapless Mayor. God help the poor creature who gets that job. The legislation simply tinkers with the problem around the edges and makes decision-making even more complex and time-consuming and less focused and utterly frustrating for those who must deliver the services to the population of Dublin.

From reading the legislation I am not surprised that the Minister did not go through it section by section. Normally, he would do so but not in this case because it is the most tortuous legislation I have seen. I congratulate those who drafted the legislation because it must have been the most tortuous job to find some role for the Mayor among the layers of bureaucracy already in existence.

Never have I seen legislation which referred more to issuing guidelines, the need to have regard to this or that, to review this or report on that, to monitor this or that and to endless consultation. All of this is simply an attempt to mask the absence of any real role or power for the new authority or Mayor. Ultimately, decision-making rests where it has always done, either with the Minister or with the local authorities or some other body with no connection to local government but with which it is supposed to liaise, for example, the police, the education authorities and so on. An attempt has been made to shoe-horn a role for the Mayor into existing structures but in reality the role of Mayor is a total irrelevancy. This is altogether a missed opportunity to do something really worthwhile with local government. However, local government has the potential to transform the lives of people in Dublin and elsewhere and to make real improvements for working and living conditions of the people.

This idea began back in the heady days of the Celtic tiger when it appeared a potentate for Dublin was just what we needed. However, the days of grand gestures, symbolic figureheads and grandstanding by "wannabe" dictators are gone. If the Minister genuinely seeks to make a difference for Dublin and for local authorities then he should go back to the drawing board. He should withdraw this legislation until we consider how fundamental reform can take place in local government. As I have stated previously, I support the concept of a Mayor for Dublin. We need somebody to speak out strongly for Dublin, perhaps a strong individual, made stronger by an elected majority of councillors, but not a single maverick or an egotistical prima donna. Even if the most worthy person in the world were elected, speaking for Dublin does not cut it and is not enough. Beyond this, we need someone to act for Dublin and this legislation will not provide that. That could only come as part of a major overhaul of the entire system. What the Minister proposes is merely a mouthpiece or a cipher who will, effectively, have no powers, no budget, no real function and, ultimately, no respect. I laughed when I heard the Minister refer to Mayor Rudy Guliani. What we are proposing could not be more different. He had powers, responsibilities, budgets and political support. Our Mayor would have none of these.

Let us consider other countries where local government works and where powerful mayors speak up for and act for their cities. It is almost always in the context of a list electoral system or similar system. In that way the party with the majority of elected members is the mayor. In that way, aspiring mayors or parties choose their list and the winner has an automatic majority and, therefore, can make decisions and can deliver on them.

Under the system proposed in this legislation, Uncle Tom Cobley could be elected with zero support from any other local authority. In such a scenario, no matter how charismatic or worthy a person may be, he or she would not achieve anything. There will be zero achievement unless there is political buy-in and support for proposals and any mayor would be utterly powerless. This is how it should be in a democracy; decisions should be taken by a representative of the majority and no one else. In his remarks, the Minister of State, Deputy Cuffe, stated that somehow having a Mayor will bring all the local authorities together. It will not. There will be competition. There is competition at present. If we are to introduce a Mayor with no political base, we should watch out for the competition and resentment that would emerge and the time that would be wasted as a result. Certainly, it would not benefit the people of Dublin.

The legislation is so arcane and complex that it is almost impossible to know who would make decisions in the new dispensation. There is so much proposed - cross-consultation with the existing bodies and with the plethora of new bodies proposed under the legislation - that the only possible outcome is bureaucratic chaos and indecision. The notion of achieving strong leadership, focused and responsible decision-making and speedy implementation of decisions is not only unlikely, but even less likely than under the current regime.

Unfortunately, the setting up of new quangos seems to be an essential part of any legislation and this legislation does not let us down in this regard. Not only would there be a new regional authority, but a new transport council and a new regional development board, the function of which I cannot begin to imagine. The functions of any of these bodies remain something of a mystery and the extensive lengths to which this legislation goes to provide a role to the office of the Mayor makes the whole project complete nonsense.

The notion of the original proposal, that the Mayor would have some role in the Dublin Transportation Authority, bit the dust when the Dublin Transportation Authority became part of the National Transport Authority. Let us role back the clock, having rolled it forward. Now we are to have a Dublin transport council in the National Transport Authority. I have experience of such a body in the past and this proposal appears suspiciously similar. I was a member of the advisory committee of the Dublin Transportation Office in the 1990s. I assure the House a more toothless body scarcely ever existed. It served to create meetings for public representatives and work for public officials but it did not change anything. In short, it was a farce and this body would represent another farce which would not achieve anything, save to give the appearance that representatives have some role.

The National Transport Authority is a relatively recent manifestation and one must assume its job was to decide policy not only around the country, but also in Dublin. If it is termed the "National Transport Authority" then that is what it should represent. Why then are we setting up a transportation council in Dublin operating within a national authority? What possible powers can it have if they are already vested in the National Transportation Authority? In short, what we have here is a dog's dinner, a sop to local representatives, giving the impression that they will have some role when power, responsibility and authority will lie elsewhere as always.

The legislation also proposed the establishment of a new regional development board. This would represent another talking shop replicating the four local development boards. If we must have a regional development board then the least we can expect is the elimination of the existing four development boards. Ultimately these are toothless bodies and are simply set up to enable countless, and in many cases useless or redundant, bureaucracies to liaise with one another.

We need to completely revamp local government throughout the country. I would like to see a movement towards a single Dublin authority with real functions, powers and revenue as well as expenditure responsibilities. This legislation simply does not achieve what is required and is worse than no change because it is so utterly cumbersome, complex and costly. Services to the people of Dublin will suffer under such a cumbersome and inefficient regime.

Far from streamlining service delivery, the Bill gives us a further accretion of bodies, layer upon layer, the result of which can only be to further stultify and paralyse decision-making. The tortuous attempt to seek a role for the mayor in a new regional authority and to superimpose the mayor on the current, already over-crowded network of bodies and inter-authority relationships, has produced the most arcane and cumbersome legislation I have seen in this House. The only result of this can be endless meetings, consultations, reviews, reports and busy work producing nothing of value. None of this can hide the fact that the office of mayor as proposed has no role, no power and no purpose.

There has been a certain amount of public debate in the media about the cost of the new body. I accept the Minister's point that it is impossible to know precisely the cost but what is certain is that it has a cost. One cannot set up a rake of bodies like this and, at least in theory, increase the remit of the local authority system and expect it to cost the same or less, as suggested by the Minister. My worry is not the direct cost but the indirect costs that will inevitably result from the loss of efficiency, focus and direction and the cost borne by the people of Dublin - the financial cost as well as the loss of services - that will inevitably result.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch spoke about the essence of local government reform, which is devolution. There is zero devolution in this Bill and if any power is allocated to the new mayor's office, it comes from the existing local authorities rather than central government. With a system as centralised as Ireland's, the only way to reform it is through further devolution. We do not get that in this Bill.

Having looked at the sections in this substantial Bill, one asks what will be different and better as a result. This body has no planning role, no housing role, no transport role, no waste policy role, no water policy role, no new role and no budget. All it has is a ceremonial role. God help the mayor who is hoping for a ceremonial role when competing with four mayors or cathaoirligh or whatever they will be called. There will be a dogfight to see who is king of the castle and I very much doubt the mayor without a budget will win. I do not question the motivation behind this legislation. I would love to see real reform of local authorities. I would love to see them having a strong voice. There is great potential in local government. The current system does not work. We need joined-up thinking and we need to bang heads together. I refer to bodies within local authorities and those providing services in Dublin over which local authorities have no control. In many cases such bodies see their autonomy as more important than the people they are serving. Local authorities have major potential to improve the quality of life for people. Dublin is the prime city and is the engine of growth for the country. What happens in Dublin matters not just to Dubliners but to the entire country. To get this right is desperately important. I plead with the Minister to take back this legislation. I do not question the motivation but let us get this right. Let us not make another dog's dinner of local authorities in Dublin.

See this speech in context