Noel Harrington (Cork South West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

It is an honour to speak on the Second Stage of the Local Government Bill. I was a member of Cork County Council from 1999 to 2011. I served as a member of the Southern Health Board until its dissolution. I served on the South West Regional Authority and also chaired that body. While I accept much of what Deputy Calleary has said, it is predicated on the idea that local government existed. We never had local government - whether it was a town council, an urban council, a county council, a regional assembly or a regional authority. We had local administration, rubberstamped by elected members in too many chambers throughout the country. The only real power any local elected representative had was at budget time and at the discussion and deliberation on county and local development plans. Apart from that there was nothing and we were entirely dependent on information and resolutions coming from the executive and the county managers, as well as circulars and policies from central government. It just did not exist.

Every argument that has been made about keeping government at the lowest level and closest to the people through the town and local authorities is ridiculous and always has been. Regrettably there have been many missed opportunities for reform. The greatest change that significantly impacted local government was the abolition of rates in 1977 and the decapitation of what was a quasi-local government resulting in the inability thereafter to fund themselves adequately.

While the Bill might not go far enough, it contains some welcome provisions. The merger of the six councils in Waterford, Tipperary and Limerick is seen as a positive move by citizens in those areas. While it is not provided for in the Bill, I would go further in making a proposal that deserves consideration. We should consider merging Cork City Council and Cork County Council in future. This would offer a real counterbalance to the east coast as a single economic and political unit to serve the citizens of Cork city and county more effectively. I say that perhaps in the teeth of opposition from local politicians in the area. It might be given consideration when we see how the mergers in Waterford, Tipperary and Limerick fare out.

In west County Cork we will lose the five town councils in Bantry, Skibbereen, Clonakilty, Bandon and Kinsale, comprising 45 councillors. We will also losing four county councillors in the area. The number of local public representatives in west County Cork will go from 57 to eight. While that is extraordinary, they will have to live with it. Those county councillors need real power. More power needs to be vested in the elected representatives than in the executive. Then perhaps we might see more effective local government. I would prefer to see eight elected members in a region who have some say and power over decisions that affect the citizens rather than 57 who do not.

The European funding is very much focused on regions. The Irish experience in regions through the regional authorities has by and large been positive. However, those regional authorities also come under the excessive influence of county and city managers, engineers and staff. They do not have adequate reserved functions to serve those regional structures to match the European commitment that provides for them.

Deputy Calleary spoke of the huge difficulty with community development programmes, addressed in section 6. Why did the funding for such rural development need to be vested in companies limited by guarantee? Some of them work well. I served on one, Comhdháil Oileáin na hÉireann, which served the western offshore islands. It came up with curious anomalies where for different reasons a project half a mile away on an island can be approved by one company and the exact same project on the mainland cannot be approved by a different company. It throws up some anomalies with respect to governance, transparency and information being provided to the public. There are reservations over how that funding would be managed when they are incorporated back into the local authority structure. However, if we are serious about giving political accountability and responsibility to the people nearest the ground, it makes sense for that to be within the local authority structure. They are not being wiped out; they report to an elected body, which is a welcome provision.

There are opaque references to the audit functions of local authorities. There is an issue of understanding among local councillors now because they believe they are powerless and they simply accept audits. This has been my experience in Cork County Council. A councillor will examine reports from the local government auditor and the comptrollers and accept them, but he cannot do much about them. If the auditor draw attention to something, the councillor can discuss it at council and ask questions and get some answers. It is in the public domain and the media but there are rarely any resolutions. That is a major issue and I hope future councillors and elected members of local authorities in local chambers will take it up far more vigorously.

We hear references to saving money. I hope there will be a far more efficient whistleblowing system within local authorities, whereby staff members who know that there are inefficiencies or wasted resources can report them through the management, councils or through the chamber without fear of recrimination. I strongly urge that this should be considered.

There is reference in the legislation to amending section 140 of the Local Government Act 2001, which replaced section 4 of the City and County Management (Amendment) Act. I have always held the view that these were particularly difficult sections within the local government system and I am pleased to note that in the 12 years I was a member of Cork County Council I do not recall a single incident when a section 140 provision was proposed, never mind passed. I gather there was one case in 1997 or 1988 relating to extending power lines over Cork Harbour and that became a major issue but that was the only time. Other local authorities use section 140 provisions as if they are questions to the manager and hold up a vast amounts of resources on proposals that are, frankly, sinister or part of a sinister agenda.

This is a welcome step in the reform of local government but it is only a step. Anyone serious about reform would be the first to recognise that when one introduces an item of reform it does not stop there. It cannot because the nature of reform is ongoing. I am keen to see a situation whereby the local government system moves on from being a public administration rubber-stamp chamber to a system that effectively and really deals with issues such as local education, health, policing, child care and welfare. It should provide for services as near to the people as possible and should integrate those services in terms of local planning and development. Why is it, for example, that one can plan for a school locally but one must provide for it nationally? These issues are relevant and I am keen to see them addressed in future. I imagine there will be further legislation anon and all of these issues will be addressed to give real power back to local authorities and chambers.

See this speech in context