Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Before I discuss the Local Government Bill 2013, I might suggest that Deputy Maloney should read the library service's insight into localism in politics, which was published a couple of years ago and contains interesting information about single-seat constituencies. It reveals that British MPs spend more time working on local issues than Deputies in this House. Given that the survey on which the report is based was conducted in 2002, before this issue came into sharp focus, I would say the figures are more accurate than they would be if the survey had been conducted more recently. I am sure all Deputies would now be very wary of saying they spend much time on local issues, given the public perception of clientelism and parish pump politics. There is a perception in Dublin that Deputies from rural areas are not interested in anything other than the parish pump. It would be worthwhile for Deputy Maloney to read the document in question because it sheds some light on certain figures. I can say that I certainly do not spend 80% of my time dealing with local authority issues.

The Bill before the House does not represent reform. I think its real purpose is to reduce costs in the long run while indirectly increasing the costs that have to be met by people in local council areas. If we were talking about political reform, we would be looking at various models of local authority operation and local representation. There are models of well-formed local government formats in countries across Europe. There are 1,500 people, on average, per local government unit in France. Scandinavian countries like Denmark and Norway have very effective local government systems. The difference is that real powers are given to the local government structures in such countries. In many countries, local authorities have the ability to raise funding at local level. I understand that 30% of taxation in Denmark goes into local authorities, which decide how it should be spent.

That is why I think this Bill has nothing to do with reform. It does not provide any reform. The only reform it provides is going in the wrong direction. I would argue that we should be developing a local government system from the level of the parish, which is the basic unit that makes up this State. Real local representative democracy at parish level should lead into democracy in the new municipal areas, or electoral areas as they are under the existing Local Government Acts. That, in turn, should lead into democracy at local authority level and ultimately democracy at Government level. In such circumstances, some real change and real reform might take place in this State.

One of the big legacies of previous Governments is their failure to make any attempt at real local government reform. Similarly, this Bill will continue the exact same system we have at the moment, whereby the manager has all the power and the councillors are the opposition, in effect. It will not confront the charade I saw in Donegal County Council for 12 years. The largest party - most of the time it was Fianna Fáil - made it look like it was in control of the council. In fact, it was cosying up to the county manager to get its pet projects dealt with. It made it look like it was providing for the smooth running of the council.

The reality is that councillors have no say. County managers direct the policies, the finances and the total operation of local government. If we really want to reform the limited amount of local government we have in this country, we should bring direct political accountability to local authorities. If we want to bring about real accountability, we should allow the local government system to operate in the same way as the system used in the Dáil - dysfunctional as it is - by allowing those who have a political majority at local authority level to control how local authority areas are run. By allowing local representatives to work in tandem with local authority management, we can replace the charade that exists in every local authority area at present with genuine political accountability. I think that would contribute to bringing about real change and making a real difference.

As part of the local authority reform I am proposing, we should give local authorities the ability to raise funding in their own areas. Perhaps a portion of the national tax take could be made available to them to give them real discretion in spending. Local authorities should be allowed to devise spending policies for the benefit, as they see it, of their counties. Of course there must be oversight and auditing to make sure money is being spent properly and people are being held to account. If local authorities and local politicians are misspending public funding, or failing to direct it towards the areas of greatest need, they must be held to account.

Unfortunately, the real change and real accountability I am advocating is not provided for in this Bill. The change in title from "county manager" to "chief executive" will not make any real difference to the operation of those functions. The Minister is tinkering around the edges. I think the abolition of the town councils is a retrograde step. Given that town councils and, in particular, town commissions do not have any power, I have to question how they have functioned or whether they have functioned at all. If we had real local government reform, those units could have real local powers and be able to deliver local services into their areas. We will not get that under this legislation.

I agree with the proposal in the Bill to abolish section 140 motions as they apply to planning matters. I think that is worthwhile. When I was a member of Donegal County Council, one's ability to get a section 140 motion, or a section 4 motion as it was known during the first few years of its operation, depended on the level of political sway one enjoyed. A decision on whether a person got planning permission hinged on whether he or she had a friend who was a politician.

It was not about whether it was in the interests of the county development. If the same rationale were used for putting forward a section 140 resolution many people in the same circumstances would also have been entitled to them. It makes perfect sense to remove that provision.

The Bill provides that 50% of the rates will be payable on empty buildings. In the current climate that will have a huge impact particularly in Donegal and other rural counties where many of our towns and villages have large numbers of vacant buildings because of the downturn and crisis. Levying 50% of the rate will put them into even more difficulty. It is a backdoor way of raising additional taxes to give extra funding to local authorities. Every cent that will be raised from it will be taken away from national government. That is one impact of the Bill and is a retrograde step.

Overall the legislation is a waste of time because it does not provide any reform or change. It will make no difference to local authorities apart from abolishing the town councils and changing the numbers of elected members - County Donegal will get an extra eight councillors. It will not make any difference to the lives of citizens and will not make a difference to the accountability of local authorities. It will not provide real political accountability whereby people's votes for local authority members will make a difference to the policy direction of the local authority. The Bill represents a lost opportunity and it is a pity we do not see real reform. The Government's idea of reform has been an attempt to abolish the Seanad and tinkering at the edges with the Dáil while maintaining the Executive's stranglehold over the Dáil. It also intends to maintain the stranglehold central government has on local authorities into the future.

Overall this is a lost opportunity and it is a shame we could not see real reform that would deliver real local government rather than the provisions in the Bill.

See this speech in context