Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)

I thank the Minister for his response. I get the overall rationale in terms of not wanting to have an endless list of exemptions because, of course, that would undermine this funding stream. I am not looking for an exemption. What this amendment proposes is a 50% reduction, in the full acknowledgment that in an area where an estate or a development has been built and is not yet taken in charge there is absolutely a benefit to the people living there in terms of the investment from the local authority in the wider infrastructure and the wider community, including libraries, regional parks and the wider road network. That is acknowledged by my amendment in referring to 50% because about 50% should go to fund that. About 50%, though, is on the maintenance of one's local roads, local footpaths, pocket parks and so forth. There are areas that are not taken in charge where, on the roads that are not taken in charge, gardaí cannot enforce the road traffic legislation. There may be road markings and so forth but the gardaí do not have legal instruments to enforce the legislation. They can ask people to co-operate in common sense and so forth but they cannot actually enforce the legislation, and this goes on for decades. It can happen outside schools that are built with newer developments. There are issues where local authorities at times will not put in place school traffic wardens on roads or footpaths that are not taken in charge, which creates very real issues in terms of the safety of children. It is totally unfair that children do not get a school traffic warden outside their school, a school funded and built by the State with public money, because these areas are not taken in charge. It is not the fault of the child or their family that this can take decades.

I accept that there is a case for a contribution, and that is what this amendment seeks to do. If the Minister were to say to me that he thinks 50:50 is incorrect and that 60:40 would be preferable, or that he will look at this seriously, of course I would entertain that, but there is no acknowledgment from what the Minister says that there is an injustice here in terms of a full contribution being made, including for services that are not being provided within the area where people are living. If this is not done, how do we create an incentive for local authorities to take areas in charge? They lose money when they take an area in charge. They take on more work and more outlay rather than there being an incentive. Surely the funding streams should try to incentivise the right behaviour from a local authority. To put it another way, a local authority that is proactive on this is getting penalised, whereas local authorities that are not as proactive in taking areas in charge are not being penalised, in effect.

As the Minister can appreciate, having good financial incentives for the best behaviour and outcomes for communities and local services is a good way to approach solving these problems.

See this speech in context