Victor Boyhan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the House once again. He is attempting to embark on major local government reform, which is his area of responsibility. The Taoiseach has tasked him with doing so and leading from the front in that regard. He is well able and motivated to so do.

The Minister of State addressed the Dáil on Thursday, 24 January 2019 and set out more or less the same points he has made here today. I took the liberty of downloading his statement on that occasion, which I circulated to every councillor in the country. I make no apologies for doing so. I am very interested in local government and I came to the Seanad to specialise in it. Housing, planning and local government are the areas on which I focus. As the Minister of State is aware, I am an exceptionally active member of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Housing, Planning and Local Government. I received a mixed response to my distribution of the statement. The biggest response was from members of Fine Gael, particularly Dublin representatives, which was very interesting, although I know some of them, which may partly explain it. They expressed many reservations. No respondent from the Minister of State's party was in favour of his plans. Some members of the Labour Party stated that they required further time to come to a decision on the wisdom of having directly elected mayors. What was the reason for such response?

I am not against having directly elected mayors. There are two mayors of London who have different functions. There are many models for directly elected mayors, such as in Barcelona and other cities. The problem is that this only addresses one element of local government reform, much to the frustration and annoyance of local councillors. The Minister of State might bear in mind that it is critically important at the very early stages of this proposed legislation to set up regional meetings with councillors to talk through the proposal with them because if they do not buy into it, it will not happen. However, if the Minister of State can get them on board, things would go far more smoothly. Local government reform is a complex issue touching on the role, functions and remuneration of councillors as well the respect afforded to them as professional county councillors. All of those issues feed into the feeling of frustration among councillors. The Minister of State's proposals may fall due to the frustration, vexation and anger about the defined role of elected county councillors rather than because of opposition to having directly elected mayors.

The Minister of State knows and I know that many of them will be seeking re-election and that this is not an easy task. It is a hard job to get elected in one's community. Indeed, it is a great honour but it is a hard task. I am keen to make that point.

I accept and acknowledge that this is in the programme for Government and the Minister of State is delivering on the programme for Government. I know it may be seen as something of a setback in respect of Galway. Perhaps the Minister of State will touch on his intentions with regard to Galway city and county. I understand that he proposes to bring forward a separate Bill for Galway. He might share that information with us.

What am I saying? I took the time to look at Owen Keegan. He has been an exceptionally good county manager and he is now in Dublin City Council. He has made some public commentary on the question of the mayor. He asked about the functions and proper devolved powers. Who are they coming from and who are they going to? He is respected by Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government officials as well as by many councils throughout the country. He was my county manager in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council at one stage. Are county managers, as we now know them, chief executives? What about those in the County and City Management Association? Are representative bodies like the CCMA buying into this? I think there is potential opportunity for balance between a chief executive and a mayor. I am not in favour of giving all powers to a mayor but it is important that we have leadership in terms of elected leaders on the council. I also believe the issue of executive functions arise. The Minister of State referred to the posts of Secretary General and the Minister in his Department. I think there is synergy and balance between the two. To be fair to chief executives, they get a great deal of bad stick. I have made some commentary about them too. I am going to put my hand up and say as much. Despite this, I think they have served us well on the whole. Chief executives have served themselves well.

The Minister of State also needs to look at his track record in government. His party has been in government for seven years. We need to look at the powers and functions. We must also ask whether the Government is committed to devolving powers in a range of areas, including tourism and transport. I know it has done much in terms of enterprise in the community. We have an issue in this area. This has to be one part of a package of reforms for local government. That is important.

If we are to have a plebiscite, then the Government will have to bring people on board and set out for them the cost implications, because there will be cost implications. That brings me back to the old chestnut of finance and the local property tax. People are frustrated about the local property tax. Some councils do not retain all the local property tax. It is collected locally but distributed nationally. We have to link in all of that. How can we allow communities to keep the taxes that they generate locally? How can we subsidise, assist and prop up local authorities that cannot generate the local property tax? I recognise that this matter needs to be addressed too. If we are to have mayors, then we must have finance, real power and real functions. It will not work if we shift the power from chief executives to mayors. It is a matter of the synergy of both. Between us, if we are imaginative enough, we can get a very clever balance.

Ultimately, in Waterford, Limerick and Cork we will have elected representatives on councils from all parties and none. They will either be for or against the idea. They will also be out batting and they might suggest not providing for the mayor idea because it will cost more money or the cost will come from the local property tax and so on. In that case, the idea of mayors will be scuppered. The key message is for the Minister of State to go out to these cities. He should explain the plan to the relevant people and what the Department is doing. If the Minister of State wants to sell it on that basis, it might work. If he addresses the issues of councillor remuneration and how they are valued, then I believe they will be on board with him.

It is an interesting dichotomy that the Minister of State is in, but it is important that we send a clear message. We must say that we value county councillors and that we are going to talk to them next before any plebiscite. The Minister of State should set up regional discussions with officials from the Department and explain the rationale behind it. He needs to bring on board these managers and chief executives, because otherwise they are going to put the brakes on if they believe the Government will take powers from them.

I am in favour of the principle of mayors. However, we need to be careful and clearly define the powers and functions. I sincerely and genuinely wish the Minister of State well. The real issue, however, is finance. It is about who we are taking the powers from and who we are giving the powers to.