David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)

I welcome the Minister of State. The first thing we should ask ourselves when we examine or discuss reform of local government or government generally is what principles should underpin the reform. For me, it is about adding value, achieving benefits and improving services. All I have seen so far from this Government, including what is contained in the Bill, is reduction and subtraction, with no addition.

An earlier speaker spoke about property taxes potentially being introduced next year or the year after. However, a range of services have been removed from local authorities, such as waste services. Water services are due to be removed and the privatisation of the maintenance of local authority housing is now on the agenda as well. Increasingly, fewer services are being provided through local authorities, yet we are talking about reform. The reform is all about reduction, cutting numbers, cutting councils and amalgamations and mergers. I do not see where the improved services will arise. I agree with Senator Barrett about the directors of services. Waterford is a good example. There are five directors of services in the city and there are five or six in the county, which makes no sense. However, that is the reality and it is an area we must examine.

Other Senators have mentioned Tipperary and Limerick so I will discuss the situation in Waterford and what might happen there. There is also a proposal to merge Waterford City and County Councils. It appears to be a good idea, on the face of it. Amalgamating the two authorities should save money and provide better services, but I am not sure that will be the case. Take the example of Waterford city. It is Ireland's oldest city and has an individual history and heritage. It would be mad to have a situation where some towns will continue to have councils, whatever format those councils will take, yet cities such as Waterford and Limerick might not have their own local authorities. It makes no sense.

The national spatial strategy identified Waterford city as the gateway of the region. It must be the economic hub and driver of the region. However, there has already been a loss of services. Waterford is fighting for a university and is the location of the regional hospital, but it is having a hard time getting the resources it needs to create the jobs that will sustain not just Waterford but the entire south-east region. Removing the city council and its status will be a retrograde step and could undermine the city's gateway status. However, if one has a unified council - to put this in crude terms - the balance of power will be with the county in terms of numbers and this must be considered. Consequently, there is real concern one could see a drift away from building and expanding the city, which is what is needed, towards something different. Moreover, the county in Waterford has its own outlook, which often is rural when compared with the urban outlook of the city. Consequently, forcing an amalgamation with the potential diminution of the city's status - and certainly removing city council status from Waterford - is perceived by many people from across all parties and by many parties as a retrograde step that must be considered. I make the case that Waterford must be supported culturally, socially and economically to be that economic hub and driver which will ensure it can then function as the economic engine of the south east. However, removing its city council status will not help in this regard. I agree the Minister should examine shared services as an area in which potential savings could be made. It could be a compromise between amalgamations and wishing to achieve savings and improved services and would be a far better approach for the Government to take. However, I wish to put on record Sinn Féin's opposition to any merger of the city and county councils for the reasons I have outlined. The concerns of the people of Waterford, from both the county and the city, are genuine in respect of a merger.

I do not wish to limit my comments to Waterford city because Limerick also is important. Limerick city and county have their own unique outlooks and like Waterford, Limerick county has a rural outlook. I will comment on the regeneration projects and the disbandment of their boards. I note that when those projects were first launched, many promises were made by the previous Government in respect of doing huge work to regenerate Limerick. However, since that major announcement was made five years ago, 1,000 homes have been demolished but only 34 homes have been built. This constitutes a failure of the political system and one must be highly cognisant of this point when considering the abolition of such boards. What will replace them and will the necessary funding be made available to ensure the people of Limerick get what they deserve, especially in those communities that have been so greatly disadvantaged by Government policies over the years? One must ensure they are not forgotten about simply because money is tight and we are in straitened economic circumstances. This should not mean such communities, which are suffering the most at present, are not looked after as I argue they should be shielded as much as possible.

While I welcome the abolition of some of the boards as proposed in this Bill, I have real concerns about giving the Minister powers in this regard and there is an issue regarding consultation. If the Government decides to opt for amalgamations, why not put such proposals to the people in those areas? Why not hold a plebiscite in Limerick and Waterford and let people there decide? This was done in the most recent elections in the United Kingdom concerning directly elected mayors, in which some areas went for the proposals and others against. It would be wrong for the Minister simply to hold the power himself and to make a decision that will have far-reaching consequences for the people of Waterford, Limerick and elsewhere. Democracy must prevail and the people who live in those communities should have their say. The best way to do this would be through a plebiscite.