John Paul Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The purpose of any local authority is to provide public infrastructure and services. What has became apparent in the Cork review is that somewhere between 600 and 700 different services are provided by the local authority, a number that also shocked me. It concerns the idea that a local authority would invest public money - in this case, money it has received either from a Department such as the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government or the people who make the contributions in their local authority area, namely, ratepayers and local property taxpayers in recent years - to provide a facility for the community there albeit, as the Senator noted, not in anticipation that there would be a boundary change but that somehow it would get a cheque at the end because it was being transferred with the population of the area. The valuation is to the community that it serves.Outsiders would consider Douglas, Glanmire and Togher to be parts of Cork city but they are not in the city because the current boundary does not reflect the boundary of the city. That is not the fault of the county council. By and large, the services provided in the area for which the county council is responsible are pretty good. However, there can be no question of a cheque being signed by the city for the county on the basis of the county having done its statutory job, which is to provide services in those areas. If there are outstanding debts on such properties, it would be logical for the city council to pick up the tab in the future. However, local authorities are not businesses, although many people would argue that they should be run on a more business-like footing. I am at least partly in that camp. The provision of public services from public funds cannot result in the recouping of the capital outlay by the county council in this case. The council was performing its function and if it still has debts, those debts should and will transfer. That is as clear as I can be.

The implementation group is the arbiter in respect of matters on which there is no agreement between the city and the county. As I stated, there has been more agreement recently than there had been previously. The Cork issue has moved on. Last night, Senator Craughwell said the Cork issue had been fully agreed but no agreement had been reached in Galway. I outlined to him that many of my party colleagues in Cork were not especially happy. I should say, I did not have Senator Buttimer in mind at the time.