I wish to speak in favour of the motion. Local Government is an essential element in a democratic state and is also the machinery by which important services are provided. A local government system permits more direct contact with local people in the process and responsibilities of government. Conditions, needs, opinions, resources and aspirations of local significance differ and therefore it is essential that there should be means of converting national policies in relation to such matters as housing, roads, water, sewerage services and other amenity services into action programmes suited to the circumstances of different areas.
Local authorities are responsible for providing many services. They are responsible for the upkeep and safety of our roads. They are expected to provide houses and also expected to provide water and sewerage services for our community, along with several other needs so essential for the development and preservation of the environment generally. In order that local authorities can provide these services adequately they need finance. There is no need to state that local authorities are not properly financed. The present disastrous state of finances has reached a crisis point, and something more than talking is necessary.
The first urgent requirement is that national Government should admit inadequacies in the present system of financing. As the Government they have control and they are to blame. It must also be admitted that most of the functions being carried out by local authorities are costing a fraction of what it would cost to administer the same services nationally. The proper thing to do would be for the Government to give as many administrative responsibilities as possible to local authorities and provide sufficient finances for them so that they could effectively administer these responsibilities by levying a special level of national taxation for local government services.
If one were to compare administrative costs of semi-State or State operations to local authority administrative costs, it would be obvious that it is tantamount to economic madness not to use local authorities more. For instance, there are a number of agencies employed by the State for youth development, training schemes and industrial development, apart from bodies like the Office of Public Works who carry out the maintenance of public buildings and drainage schemes. By comparison similar types of work carried out by local authorities have been found to be more economically and effectively organised and much more amenable to local and public participation, co-operation and satisfaction.
The Government are spending a sum of £6,500 annually per unemployed person. This money would be more usefully employed if the Government examined the use of local authorities as providers of jobs. If local authorities had sums of money available to them, not alone would they reduce the unemployment figures but they would carry out improvement works in drainage, tourist facilities and development of national resources which are necessary and in turn would be of economic and social benefit and lift the depression which in recent years has beset our people.
Local authorities should be empowered to develop training programmes for a variety of schemes which would provide much needed training for young people who are denied training opportunities at present. Development of a new training programme could be organised and operated better at county level under the existing county development teams in co-operation with the vocational educational committees, the county councils, ACOT committees and IDA. If present legislation makes that impracticable, it should be amended immediately to make it workable. It costs 12½ per cent to administer schemes at local authority level; it costs three and four times that amount to administer the same schemes at national level. Local authorities need much more finance from the Exchequer than ever before. Inadequate distribution of replacement charges must be replaced urgently with an alternative simple system.
It would not be fair to ask local authorities to increase charges or introduce more charges for services, as the public are taxed to the hilt already. In 1983 water charges were estimated to bring in an income of £22 million if collected, whereas £23 million was left uncollected in motor tax evasion. There seems to be something drastically wrong here. Twelve million pounds was paid towards supplementary welfare in 1983 for a scheme in which the councils had no involvement except to pay. The sum of £15 million was paid in malicious injury claims, £1½ million was paid in courthouse maintenance and £9.792 million was spent by authorities in contributions to drainage.
I am glad to note from the Minister's speech that the National Economic and Social Council are carrying out a limited review of local authority finance. I hope that when carrying out this review they will get submissions from members of local authorities and that when the Minister receives the report he will act on it expeditiously.
Senator O'Toole when ably introducing this motion referred to statutory demands. If councils were to shed responsibility for supplementary welfare, malicious injuries, courthouse maintenance, arterial drainage and if the State forwarded advances of money, £31.6 million would be saved, water charges would not be required and the councils would be able to provide the services that are expected from them. Alternatively, if even 1 per cent of income tax and VAT were paid to councils it would mean an alternative income of £28 million. Senator O'Toole was right when in moving the motion he demanded the removal of statutory demands from local authorities. These demands are hindering local authorities in fulfilling the work of providing the necessary services that are expected from them, and unless the Government make some finances available to the councils to meet these statutory demands, the councils will not be in a position to meet their obligations.
It is obvious from the major road schemes undertaken and planned by local authorities that the staff are highly effective and efficient in carrying out such schemes. The Nass by-pass is one great example of such, and it reminds me of signs that people regularly pass announcing that a project is being grant aided by the European Regional Fund. I understand that before such a sign appears the particular county council will have been waiting a long time for the Minister for the Environment, with the permission of the Minister for Finance, to sanction this new road scheme or bridge for which the regional development moneys have been earmarked. This is another example of the frustration of local authorities in not having direct access to the European Regional Fund. The Minister and the Government should examine this.
When the Department of the Environment are allocating funds for youth employment schemes in the future, regulations concerning such schemes should be as simple as possible so that local authorities can implement really meaningful training schemes for the purpose that they see fit. The regulations should be simple and drawn up so as to ensure that meaningful training schemes for the youth can be undertaken in the summer time. Local authorities should be responsible for the provision of recreational and amenity facilities and such schemes, would be undertaken by them to great advantage.
It is frightening to think about local government planning for 1984 in view of the fact that local authorities are already carrying a debt of over £60 million into the current financial year and are expected to find an additional 10 per cent to maintain services at last year's level because of increased costs and no corresponding budgetary increase. How can local authorities even maintain services at last year's level, never mind provide additional services, with an increase of a mere 0.8 per cent? Many councils are frustrated because of such a derisory increase in the rates support grant from the Government.
As the Minister well knows, the councils are demanding that he meet deputations to discuss the grave financial problems. I understand that the Minister of State met a deputation today. He has been meeting deputations for the past week. The only publicity about these deputations is that the Minister is refusing to meet some elected members who form part of these delegations. I know that a group from one county met the Minister last week and a member of the council could not be part of the deputation, but when the Coalition partners in that county saw fit to deprive Fianna Fáil of the chairmanship of that authority they did not tell him that he should not vote but used him to ensure that Fianna Fáil would not get the chairmanship. I am referring to Frank Glynn who was not allowed into this House last week. He was not good enough to meet the Minister in a deputation but definitely found sufficient to be Chairman of Galway County Council because it would ensure that Fianna Fáil could not get the chair.
There will also be a need for a local government system run by people with local experience and intimate knowledge of local conditions. Elected members are fundamental to the survival of local government. It is they who must interpret public feeling and enliven it with leadership. If there were no elected members to interpret the wishes of local people and to give effect to policy decisions, then democracy would be in jeopardy. In this instance reform is badly needed. The local government elections were postponed this year because local government reform was being implemented. I think that local government reform was only used as a disguise, an excuse to postpone elections, because the Coalition partners, Fine Gael and Labour, were afraid to meet the electorate, knowing that if they did so they would have far less local authority membership than at present. Our county councillors who had to face the people to get elected are doing a great job.
I was disappointed some time ago when a Government backbencher, a member of the Fine Gael Party in the other House, passed some remarks which castigated the work of public representatives. I decry these remarks and would always hold these county councillors in high esteem.