Seanad debates

Thursday, 28 February 2008

Local Government Services (Corporate Bodies) (Confirmation of Orders) Bill 2008: Second Stage

 

12:00 pm

Photo of Alan KellyAlan Kelly (Labour)

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Killeen, to the House. The Labour Party will not oppose this technical Bill. I welcome the clarification we were given about the areas covered by the Limerick Northside Regeneration Agency and the Limerick Southside Regeneration Agency. I agree with the comments of the previous speakers about the work being done there. The model being used in Limerick seems to be working. We wish the regeneration agencies every success in their endeavours. It must be acknowledged that they have made good progress to date. I welcome the additional appointments which have been made to the boards of the agencies. It is particularly good that community representatives and a FÁS official have been appointed to the boards.

Like Senators Coffey and Brady, I am not familiar with the functions of some of the bodies covered by this Bill. As I come from an information technology background, I have some knowledge of the role of the Local Government Computer Services Board. I ask the Minister of State to examine the increases in the board's costs. My knowledge of this area means I have specific concerns about information technology projects. I often find that the economies which are supposed to be gained from the amalgamation of various local authority computer services do not actually materialise. Such problems are not caused by the systems themselves but by issues relating to the reasons the various computer services were being brought together in the first place. The systems analysis, as it is known, of the economies that should be achieved is probably not being done. I have seen some over-runs in my time. I would be concerned if there were any over-runs in this instance which would contribute to costs. The Minister might examine that.

We will support this technical Bill. In view of the impending Green Paper the Bill affords me the opportunity to make a number of observations. Local government reform is badly needed. In Ireland we have a form of local government which is one of the weakest in Europe. It is essentially a form of central government dominating local administration, more appropriate to mini-states within a larger country rather than an independent modern European country. Unlike European local authorities, local authorities in Ireland have little say on issues such as education, health, policing and transport.

The crux of the matter and the benchmark by which we will know if there is real reform in future is the area of funding. We have been on a slippery slope since 1977. I am not making political points but that is when the funding of local authority underwent change. The result today is that the only sources of direct revenue are rates on commercial and industrial properties, housing rents, some service charges, motor tax and development levies.

There is an over-dependence on development levies. In my constituency some people cite these levies as the reason why some planning applications are granted. With the downturn in the economy I am concerned that councils anticipated certain levies that will not now materialise. This may affect the construction of some roads and other infrastructure projects dependent on levies. Local councils may have included levies in their budgets for development and local area plans which will not now materialise.

The Minister said that reform legislation will be further delayed. I would like to know exactly when it will be published. Yesterday in the other House he was not clear, only saying it would be published soon. How soon is soon?

A key issue for reform is the provision for directly elected mayors. The Labour Party supports this proposal as it will mean greater accountability. In this context local government will not be reformed unless there is a re-balancing of the allocation of powers between elected councillors and the executive. It is appalling that we have centrally appointed managers making executive decisions for cities, counties and towns over publicly elected representatives. This lack of accountability results in un-elected managers of the local authorities being too powerful. The cross-over between reserved and executive functions needs to be addressed and clarified.

The Labour Party argues for changing the role of county manager to chief executive of the council. Chief executives should have no policy making functions other than to assist and advise the elected council in making policy. That is very important. While they would have reserved functions they would exercise a limited number of executive functions, similar to those originally intended in the city and county management Acts. The strategic policy committees were meant to deal with some of these issues, including the cross-over of reserved and executive functions and the role of elected representatives. Unfortunately in some cases the committees have become talking shops. This needs to be addressed.

Another issue that needs to be addressed in the reform of local government is the role of town councils and the disparity between local populations. This is evident everywhere, as I am sure many senators can demonstrate. For example, the Roscrea community development association has been arguing for years that it has no town council, yet its near neighbours in Birr and Templemore each has one.

For years a particular person has been fighting for association status which is covered under the 2001 Local Government Act. This is an in-between position that acknowledges a town without sufficient population to have a town council but one nonetheless able to perform certain functions from a representative point of view. I brought the issue of association status to the Department of the Environment and Local Government and asked how it might be achieved. I believe I was the first person to do so because they required clarification about the request.

Roscrea will be looking for potential association status in the near future, which will be a precedent. This issue needs to be addressed in the Green Paper. If it is not, there will be anomalies and people will feel disenfranchised. We need a system for all towns that is equitable across the board and based on population.

The Labour Party believes there should be two levels of local government: regional authorities, to include city authorities for the larger cities, and local authorities to include county town and district councils. The city and regional authorities should have responsibility for areas such as strategic planning, implementation of the national spatial policy, transport and traffic, economic development, employment services, health and communications infrastructure. We also believe in the creation of a greater Dublin regional authority.

What key services should councils provide? It is essential to look beyond the obvious services. The Labour Party believes councils should have a consumer protection role in relation to private sector services. It should be possible to question private refuse collectors, cable television operators and personnel from telecoms operators, schools, rail companies, airlines and local banks within the council chamber.

The Labour Party also believes in strengthening the role of the elected council to provide the citizen with accountable public services. Councillors should have the power to seek accountability from any agency, public or private, that provides public services within their area.

The Government should look at the issue of decentralisation of Government functions, not merely the relocation of offices, with an eye to providing services locally. The allocation of national lottery funds could assist in the areas of sport, leisure and tourism. There is no reason regional offices of IDA Ireland or FÁS could not work with local authorities regarding the industrial sector. Similarly, in the area of social and family affairs, relevant offices could work through local authorities.

The Labour Party also calls for the establishment of a national forum on the financing of local government. This is a key component and a fulcrum of local government reform. I was not convinced by yesterday's reply by the Minister for Environment, Heritage and Local Government regarding the cap on a candidate's expenditure during a local election. Given that we know the date of the election, more progress needs to be made on this. In response to a question from Deputy Ciarán Lynch yesterday, the Minister was far from convincing in saying that we would have legislation to cover this area.

I wish that citizens and community members were involved on the consultative committee on local government reform. Three councillors from my party were brought onto the committee, which is welcome. It is regrettable, however, that no one representing citizens' or community groups was invited. Reform of local government first must take into account the requirements of people and communities at local level. Reform in itself is not the point. It is about how best to deal with the public and help people and communities at local level. One example of reform for reform's sake in organisational structure is the Health Service Executive, thereby demonstrating that reform on its own is no guarantee of success. We need to go beyond such examples in looking at local government reform.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.