Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Its mention provides me with an opportunity to explain what I mean by the dilution of democracy. There is no doubt that largely abolishing local councils will diminish their importance on the business, community and tourism maps of their area and county. It does not matter how good the new structures will be. The one great asset that we have in this time of challenge and opportunity is a sense of place, a sense of nation and a sense of tradition. Members know that is the case and have a sense of place for their towns and counties. We see that sense in the competitive field of sports, in the economic field and when there has been an achievement in an area. That sense of place cannot be replaced by any structure. Cashel received its charter from King William many centuries ago and it was a city when Dublin was just a black hole. Before any of the other cities were even heard of, Cashel was the city of the kings. That sense of place was handed down through the town clerks that I remember in Cashel and right down through the years the sense of history, stability and tradition stood to us when we were challenged.

I have examined what is being sought in terms of political reform.

What political reform has there been in Dáil Éireann? There has been hardly any. It sits on a Friday, which is almost a non-event, and there will be fewer Deputies. There was also a botched effort to abolish the Seanad. The Minister and I went on radio and had a very amicable debate, as should be the case, in that regard. Where is the rest of the reform the people expect and were promised?

It is interesting this is happening at a time of recession and economic deprivation. The reason is that people are so preoccupied with surviving and sustaining their lives and their families that they really have not had a chance to consider what is being suggested in this legislation. We talk about democracy but the essence of that is closeness to the people. I served on Cashel Urban Council for 18 years and will give the House one of hundreds of examples I had of closeness to the people. I returned home at 1 a.m. from Dublin, the fire was lighting and my wife had the teapot ready. We were having a cup of tea when there was a knock on the door. It was spilling rain outside and a tenant of a local authority house asked me to look at the leak in the roof of his house. I said I would look at it the next day but he said that it would not be raining the next day and he wanted me to do so that night. I went to look at it and I was able to do something about it. That was the closeness of the people which is democracy no matter what other way one puts it. The abolition of town councils is not a good move and certainly not in the context of the lack of progress in the other areas when it comes to political reform.

I make the same point about the number of county councillors. County councillors have been demeaned and targeted by certain groups and media as if they were, in some way, lesser beings. What they have had to put up with down through the years is an outrage to democracy. The Minister knows better than I do, or certainly as well I do, the service county councillors give in their own areas. Not enough euro could pay them for it. We want sterling service in public life but because that type of caricature, which is contrived, is put forward, it is easy to take a pot shot at councillors and put away so many of them. That is a big mistake because we need our councillors.

Although it sounds like an element of democracy, I do not agree with the idea that the number should be based on the size of the electorate because there are other aspects to an area, including the size of the territory and the deprivation that very often exists in counties which need stronger representation. The idea of diminishing further any chance they have at equity and equality is certainly lessened in this case.

As for bureaucracy, nobody can tell me from reading this legislation that we are giving more power to the people and less to bureaucracy. The opposite is actually happening. We will see that quicker than we expect when it is operating. I am not critical of county mangers, county secretaries or officials. My experience of them has been very good but I always think there is a democratic deficit when one hands over to those people more power and gives less power to the councillors, despite what is being suggested here.

Much of this legislation, as we see from the Minister's well crafted speech, has come from other lobby groups and advisory groups. What is happening is that bureaucracy from outside is having a further say in this legislation. There are very few people in executive positions who want to be answerable to anybody.

That is not to take from them but they do not want to be answerable to anybody. That is what is happening here. They will not be answerable. In the case of local councils there will not even be an identity to whom they are answerable. In the case of county councils, the idea that they can raise more money locally might be a good one but it is very often used as an insulation by central Government to allow it to pass the blame down the line if something does not work out. There are ways of doing this, and it should be done, but I do not believe the way we are going now is the proper way to proceed.

I can see from where the European doubt is coming. As the Minister knows, Westport Town Council has put together a submission to Europe because it maintains, and it may be proved correct, that what is in the new legislation is contrary to the European Union charter. I am inclined to agree but I have read its submission and it is excellent, and it is from Government as well as Opposition councillors. It is not just a matter of defending its own turf patch. It simply believes that what is happening is not acceptable. It is not answerable. It is not even ensuring that when the legislation is passed and is implemented, we have not weakened the entire structure because, as the Minister knows, there has been a tendency in Europe to give power back to the people and funding back to the councils to allow people do things for themselves. They are doing things for themselves but what is important here is that if their democratic stand is weakened in doing those things, a problem arises.

The word that comes to mind in all of this after "democracy" is "identity". Identity is vital. We only have to consider what happens when one's county does well in the All-Ireland. I can only look to what happened in County Clare recently. I do not know of any power on earth that was greater, for whatever number of weeks it lasted, in terms of developing a pride and a positivity than Clare winning the replay. I have never seen anything like that. The Minister has had his own experience but that is the power of identity. It is not just about hurling. It is about rugby, soccer and sport in general. It is about doing things for oneself and being acknowledged and endorsed for doing it. All of that will be weakened in this legislation.

It is a very foolish person who would say we do not need reform of local government. There is no question about that but what type of reform should it be? There may have been an element of consultation but I have a gut feeling, and I do not say this in a political way but as a community activist who is proud of my home town and my county, that there is something wrong with this legislation. Even with minor amendments I do not believe we will bring it to a stage where it will represent genuine root and branch reform, coupled with the other public bodies. The Minister might convince us of that at some stage but I am worried.