DAIL DEBATES

Local Government Bill 2001 Second Stage Resumed

Sitting Time
Sitting Date
15:00 (3 o'clock)
14 June 2001

Mr. Kelleher: I wish the Minister for the Environment and Local
Government well. This debate is timely. The Bill has been awaited for a long time and I am most disappointed that the issue of the dual mandate is the only aspect of the legislation which has concentrated the minds of all the political parties and political commentators because there are many positive provisions in it which have gone unnoticed. I intend to highlight these on Committee Stage due to the lack of time available to discuss them in-depth now.
I fully endorse direct elections of mayors as it is a positive step. There has been a democratic deficit at local government level for some time. Under the structure of local government since its inception in the 19th century unelected officials have had all the powers. It is time to address this deficiency and shift the balance of power to allow local authority candidates to outline policies during elections and get involved in the strategic policy committees once they are elected to discuss these policies, which could then be implemented by the elected representatives as opposed to always having to depend on city and county managers to bring forward proposals which are discussed ad nauseum by local authority
members but ultimately implemented by the managers. If we are serious about providing for directly elected mayors, it is imperative that they should be given stronger powers during the transition phase. Initially, the local government system could be upset if the powers are transferred automatically during a mayor's first term but a continual shift of power over a number of years from the local authority manager to the mayor should be examined.
The restrictions on mayoral elections have been mentioned and I also agree that everybody should be entitled to put their name forward for election. We should be able to trust the public to decide who they want to represent them at city or county council level for five years. If single issue candidates come forward, whether the issue is of national or local importance, it means the previous set of councillors were not addressing something that they should have. If there is a strong feeling among the public regarding an issue, a breakdown in accountability and democracy at local government level is highlighted. This issue should be revisited. Many councillors are concerned that they will not have an
opportunity to become mayors. However, they can go through their party's system or stand as independents and let the people be the final arbiters of who will represent them as mayor for a five year term.
We can undertake all the local government reform we wish but the key factor is funding. As time passes, we should examine the development of a system which would allow local authorities to raise their own funds. Both Cork Corporation and Cork County Council, for example, apply service charges. If local authorities are willing to put their heads on the block and vote through charges on the public, a system should be in place to reward them. A penalty system was in place for many years whereby local authorities which raised their own funds were penalised by central government by not getting their fair share of the national cake because these funds were taken into account.
If local authorities are prepared to levy charges, an incentive should be provided by the Government and funding increased for the councils involved in order that if members are willing to pass service charges, the public will see tangible evidence of local taxes being spent in their communities on library services and so on. There is no difficulty explaining to the public the reason funds must be raised locally if the local authority is rewarded by central government and amenities and services are provided on the ground.
I welcome the provision of the one-stop-shop. Local government, similar to central government, is sometimes out of touch with what is happening in the everyday lives of ordinary people. A previous speaker referred to a constituent who had to undertake a round trip of 140 miles to tax his car. That is completely unacceptable. Every large town should have a one-stop-shop where the services of all State agencies, including local authorities and health boards, are available to citizens. In this day and age it should be straightforward to provide all these services in a one-stop-shop. I acknowledge the scheme will be established on a pilot basis but as the shops are established, they will become a hub for citizens to access the services of local government and various State agencies.
I feel strongly about the issue of managers and officials in local
authorities. I have not had a bad experience with officials as Cork
Corporation is probably one of the more dynamic local authorities and an excellent new city manager has been appointed. In the past the local authority official who had the most impact on the lives of citizens was the manager because he or she decided policy. It was almost impossible to remove a manager who was inefficient, incapable or not up to the job and the local authority was stuck with that person. A mechanism should be in place to provide accountability in this regard.
Cases involving bad local authority engineers are often raised. It is evident as one drives around the country that when one travels from one engineer's division to another there is a tangible difference in the quality of road surfaces, hedgerows and various maintenance works. This is down to one official who is not performing his or her role well. There is no system in place to remove these officials from their duties. This issue must be examined. It is fine to say all local authority officials
and civil servants are effective but it is obvious that some are not. As in any other walk of life, some people are not up to the task they are expected to perform.
The issue of capital programmes should also be examined. If accountability is to be ensured, local authority members must be allowed to make a significant input into such programmes. Members currently vote on estimates, development plans, the sale of lands but do not vote on capital programmes. Local authority members should have more of an input into budgetary decisions. We expect the public to elect councillors who will sit on a local authority for five years but do not trust them enough to have a serious input into the financial arrangements of their authority and how moneys are expended. This issue must be addressed. Cork Corporation has come a long way and members are often consulted on issues. When proposals from committees are put before the corporation the managers take the views of members on board. Funds have been set aside for traffic calming and so on about which I feel strongly. Section to follow:
Section DD follows.