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

I have a 12-page response, but I will not read the full 12 pages. I said last night – half of my speech was not included in my script – that we had developed a notion of political discourse not only in Ireland but also in most of the western world that if there was political disagreement on a matter, there was automatic disrespect.

On Senator Gallagher’s point, I have listened to many of the local representatives in Galway and do not agree with many of them. I agree with part of what many of them have to say. I absolutely agree with all of them that the core issue in Galway is funding. The reality is that the amendment is about restoring a common management structure in Galway that was in place for over 100 years, until 1985. The reality is that the divorce that took place in 1985 which we will be seeking to reverse next year in a different Bill was never really effective in the first place and the issue of the funding of Galway County Council was never resolved properly, but there have been numerous efforts to do so. Perhaps I am regarded as being the unlucky one in being required to address this issue now, but I do not believe I am unlucky at all because one has to deal with the issues that arise, be it the Cork or Galway boundaries or others with which I am very familiar, and make decisions. I am not at all surprised by what is occurring. I mentioned last night the late great Senator Jackie Daly who in 1984 famously commissioned a survey of county councillors on behalf of the then Taoiseach, with a view to seeking to postpone the local elections from 1984 to 1985. He received a 100% positive response; not surprisingly, councillors wanted the elections to be suspended for one year.

I absolutely respect the democratic mandate of councillors in Galway, but can anyone really be surprised that there is genuine fear among elected representatives that either their own role or the communities they represent may be changed by way of a change to the structure of a gun? I would be shocked if it were any different. I do not doubt for one second Senator Craughwell’s statistic - a proportion of 54 out of 57 - or the view expressed by him and Senator Boyhan that most local representatives in Galway know that this chestnut will have to be dealt with in the very near future, but I completely disagree with the notion that this legislation has been rushed. It might physically be rushed tonight, but, as long as I am home before Friday morning, I do not care how long it takes. However, it has not been rushed.

I disagree with Senator Craughwell's comment last night. It is probably not known who comprised the review group. It was formally established early in 2015, almost five years ago. Its members were Professor Eoin O’Sullivan, a Trinity College Dublin sociologist from Galway, who is internationally renowned for the study of communities and human activity, in Galway or anywhere else; Ms Hannah Kiely, an accountant from Galway; Mr. Ned Gleeson who is unique in that he was the county secretary of the local authority when the divorce took place in the mid-1980s; Mr. Michael O’Connor, a lawyer in Galway; and Mr. John Coyle, a hotelier in Galway. Therefore, Senator Craughwell’s slogan that those who are local know best is dead right. The five locals who have no skin in the game politically know best. When they gave the report to me, they were surprised that I published it immediately. I absolutely accepted it because during the years the practice was not to act on any difficult issue that arose and to kick it around for a few years, with the possibility of carrying out other reviews and everything else.Following on from that, another group with an advisory role was set up, again with Professor O’Sullivan as chair. Mr. Ned Gleeson, who had previous experience, was a member of the group, as were the chief executives of the city and county councils. All of its seven members had exceptional local knowledge, which addresses the argument that locals know best. These amendments suggest that those with local political knowledge know best.

I ask Senators to acknowledge that there was no ground-swell of public opinion in Galway against the proposed merger, as Senator Boyhan admitted. Like much of local government, structural issues only come to the attention of the public when something goes wrong or an issue arises. Senators should be aware that there is not even minor public opposition to the proposed merger. Councillors have legitimate concerns. I can only state that I am absolutely committed in respect of the funding issue. I have committed myself and my potential successors to allocating half of the funding for local government reform for the next three years directly to Galway County Council on foot of this section. That will not happen if the section is not included in the Bill because the fund is dedicated to local government reform.

Senator Boyhan is correct on the issue of shared services. The best example of that is in County Carlow. The relationship between counties Carlow and Laois is unique in terms of two local authorities and two sets of county loyalties that operate well together. It is a different situation to that in County Galway because it involves two sets of county loyalties. It is probable that after the bank guarantee and the arrival of the International Monetary Fund, Ministers considered proposals to merge local authorities. I have not found documents relating to such proposals in the Custom House and I do not want to find them because I do not believe local authorities should be merged against the wishes of the local population. I refer to more than half of the local population lodging submissions against the proposals in respect of counties Roscommon and Westmeath. The issue of identity does not arise in the merger of the Galway councils, which is why public opinion in there is that we should get on with ensuring it has the best local government structure possible.

I reiterate that there will be a local government Bill 2019 which will focus on Galway. The Bill before the House deals mainly with issues relating to County Cork. The prerequisite in mergers of local authorities is the need to have someone in charge at management level. That has been proven by the mergers in counties Waterford, Limerick and Tipperary. The significant difficulty in Galway, as highlighted by all Oireachtas Members and councillors from the area, is that many members of staff are acting up in positions in the councils that have not been filled on a full-time basis. We are proposing that there be a full-time, permanent chief executive to run the management structure in both local authorities.

I am somewhat confused by a number of Senator Boyhan’s comments. He complained that I have put forward too many Bills. That is a criticism I have not heard before. When I was a Member of the Seanad, its primary function was to deal with legislation. Next year, I will bring forward a local government Bill which will focus on Galway and another in regard to urban area committees. Senator Boyhan mentioned Deputy Ó Broin, for whom I have a lot of time. He is a member of the Joint Committee on Housing, Planning and Local Government which decided not to carry out pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. At the time, the proposals relating to County Galway formed part of the Bill. Having spoken to Deputy Ó Broin and others, I decided that the sections regarding urban area committees should form part of a separate Bill. I make no apology for believing that legislation in respect of those areas is required. It is the job of Senators to consider such legislation and I expect them to do so, as is being done tonight.

There are already many shared services between Galway city and county. The Bill does not deal with shared services in Galway. This section relates to a local authority area that will have a population of approximately 300,000. As the major city on the west coast – apologies to Limerick – we need it to be a major economic driver not just of its hinterland but, rather, the entire region. A group of experts who happened to be outsiders was tasked with looking at the structure of the councils. It reached a unanimous decision, which is supported by the managers of the two local authorities, that there should be a merged council. If the section is withdrawn or the amendment agreed to, this issue will have to be addressed when the local government Bill 2019 which will focus on Galway reaches Committee Stage in the middle of next year. Nothing magical will happen in the coming months to create agreement. Disagreement in politics is normal. There should be more of it. I do not disrespect any of the Senators who are doing their job by tabling amendments, but it is incorrect to state that the issues will be resolved because we will talk to each other between now and next May. There will never be unanimity on this issue at local government level. In answer to Senator Ó Domhnaill, I fully respect the position of councillors and their right to disagree with me. We must be prepared to disagree, particularly in the context of structural issues such as this.

Senator Murnane O’Connor raised the need for detailed discussion and to remove the section dealing with County Galway from the Bill. There will be very detailed discussion on Committee Stage of the local government Bill 2019 which will address the mechanism of merger in County Galway. Removing the section dealing with County Galway from the Bill before the House tonight will do nothing other than create a massive financial headache which will force the reopening of the budget in County Galway in the coming weeks. In the middle of next year, we would find ourselves back in the position of having to grasp the nettle and take what everyone understands is the right decision for County Galway in the long term. That is why I think we should make the decision sooner rather than later.

Senator Boyhan referred to the proper funding of local authorities and a fundamental review. As Senators are aware, Ms Sara Moorhead is carrying out a fundamental review which will examine the role and functions of councillors as well remuneration. The Senator stated that he wanted me to be clear about from whom the powers of the directly-elected mayor will be transferred. As I stated on Second Stage here and previously in the Dáil - and as I will state on many occasions in the coming months during the discussion of local government - the powers of directly-elected mayors will be transferred from managers and chief executives. No power will be removed from councillors. Their key reserved powers such as budget-making and signing off on development plans will not be affected in any way by the introduction of directly elected mayors. There is a significant democratic deficit in that regard and we need to have a discussion and plebiscite on the matter. Having directly-elected mayors will introduce some accountability into the management structure of local government. I share many of the Senator's concerns, although I must point out that we have been extraordinarily well served by the great majority of local authority managers and chief executives. However, in a democracy that is not sufficient. As well as being well served, there must be a level of accountability. That accountability does not currently exist and that is why we need directly-elected mayors.

Senator Craughwell referred to the general support among councillors for the amendment.I hope other Senators, who are not familiar with Cork, got the sense from some of the contributions of the Cork Senators this evening that there is absolutely not unanimity in Cork. Far from it, there is complete disagreement on what needs to happen in certain respects, even though it was kept very civil in the Chamber.

Someone referred to the three Galway Deputies who are against it. Eleven Deputies represent Galway or part thereof; three have expressed legitimate and strong concerns but no one has referred to the other eight Deputies and where they stand.