Many county managers would be more than happy to welcome constructive co-operation between themselves and the elected members. Councillors have other ways also of monitoring how the manager performs his executive functions. Under existing law, the council may require by resolution, to be informed in advance of the way an executive function is to be operated. They may use this power if they so wish to monitor how the manager intends to pursue the question of charges and waivers.
All in all we are satisfied that the existing law provides adequate powers to elected members to control the policy to be pursued in relation to charges. In other words, by way of resolution, a council may request the manager to come forward with the structure and the profile as to how, in this instance, he proposes to operate the water charges and as to what the system of waivers is to be because the system of waivers must vary as between one local authority and another, the needs in rural areas being different from those in urban areas and also some parts of rural Ireland being different in characteristics from others by virtue of the nature of the business engaged in and the kind of agricultural structure in the various areas.
It is regrettable that there has been so much stress on the legalities of the system. One of the strengths of our system compared with other systems of local government in Europe is that there is a high degree of co-operation and consultation between councils and managers. We expect that that co-operative spirit and practice will continue to govern relations between them in the implementation of the provisions of this Bill.
We were impressed by the weight of some of the contributions from both sides of the House and by the fact that Members come here with experience as members of local authorities. Therefore, we are prepared to accept that, if the co-operation and consultation between councils and managers which we have in mind does not materialise, if the views of the elected members should not be taken into account, or if other serious problems should arise for elected members from the operation of the scheme, we should be and would be then open to changing the system and to making it entirely a council function in respect of schemes of charges and of waivers.
In other words, if the traditional form of co-operation does not continue to operate satisfactorily, we will be prepared at the end of the day to transfer to elected members the entire responsibility for the total amounts and for the design of the waiver charges schemes.
Deputy Avril Doyle and others suggested that there may be a two-year life span for this legislation. The Minister has referred already to the fact that the principle of charges will be included in the general review of local authority financing which is being undertaken at the moment. To that extent this legislation must be regarded as an interim measure. The only point at issue in relation to the concern expressed by various Deputies was the question of a split between executive and managerial functions. In the legislation that this House has passed we have power to enable the Minister by way of order to transfer the functions of making the charges, of setting the levels and of the design of waiver schemes from an executive to a reserve function.
The Minister is prepared further to undertake to examine the operation of the system provided for in the Bill within two years with reference to this area of the balance of power and how it works out and to make whatever changes are found to be justified. Under the County Management Acts we have the power to add by order to the list of reserved functions. I would say to the House and in particular to the senior members of the Opposition that we hope this compromise and undertaking will be accepted as indicating our concern to ensure that the rights of councillors as the elected representatives are properly brought to bear in the implementation of this legislation.
I should like to turn now to some of the points raised in the course of the debate. Deputy Molloy asked how it is proposed to distribute the domestic rate grant to local authorities. It is estimated that in all the £163.5 million provided for domestic rate grant in 1983 will allow local authorities to be compensated for rate increases of up to about 5½ per cent on current domestic valuations and not the 3 per cent which was mentioned by Deputy Molloy. The estimates we have given already to local authorities are calculated on the basis of 5½ per cent. The final payments which will be determined when claims are received from local authorities and audited may vary slightly up or down on the estimates.
If the provision of £138 million for domestic rate grant which was included in the Estimates published by Fianna Fáil had been allowed to stand, instead of an increase of 5½ per cent in rates on domestic properties local authorities would have suffered a rate reduction on domestic valuations of 11 per cent. These figures are published and the House may do its own calculations if it so wishes.
Deputy Molloy pointed out rightly that section 9 of the Bill is not specific as to the basis on which the grant will be distributed. This is deliberate. While I have described how the 1983 provision of £163.5 million is to be distributed, it may be that for future years, different or additional criteria may become relevant.
Deputies Bruton and Molony touched on this matter during their contributions. The question of the basis for central subvention to local authorities will be one of the matters considered in the review of local finances. Therefore, it is necessary to have a flexible provision in the Bill on this point. Deputy Molloy was critical also of what he read as a power of direction to be given to the Minister in section 9 (2) which would allow local authorities to be told what charges to introduce. I said earlier that we have rejected this notion. The power of direction contained in this subsection is a technical one which will affect only the format of local authority estimates. It has nothing to do with the level of charges. What I have said in relation to the operation of the charges stands.
Regarding the liability to pay charges, I assure Deputies Molloy, Doyle, Flynn and Mac Giolla that a charge can be made only under the terms of the Bill where a services is provided. Moreover, services provided on a general or community-wide basis, such as street cleaning, are outside the scope of this Bill. In the case of services provided to premises such as refuse collection, we are advised that if a service is available in respect of a premises then the charge is payable by the occupier, irrespective of whether or not the service is availed of. This is in reality the only way the system can work in the case of services which relate to premises.
Deputy Molloy also raised the question of collection of water charges in urban areas. Local authorities in these areas will have exactly the same powers of enforcement and collection as county councils have operated satisfactorily for years.
With regard to the payment of charges by institutions such as hospitals, such institutions are liable for water charges under the existing legislation, whether located in urban or non-urban areas.
A number of Deputies spoke about planning charges and particular reference was made to community centres and similar kinds of development. Deputy Walsh mentioned planning fees for community halls. Planning charges are a separate system and are not affected by this Bill. That said, we do intend to review the operation of the planning charges when we have gained sufficient experience of the operation of the system to enable us to evaluate it and we will take into account points that have been made here and elsewhere.
Deputy O'Leary suggested that there should be central guidelines from the Minister as to how the charges should be levied and collected. Deputy Molloy, on the other hand, said that his party is all for more discretion for local authorities and, on this point at least, I find myself in agreement with him. I believe that in matters of this kind as much discretion as possible should be left to be exercised locally. If the Department can help with advice without infringing this principle, they will of course be ready to do so. The principle stands that as much power and discretion as is possible within the constraints of operation will be conferred on local authorities under this administration.
Various Deputies referred to the administrative arrangements necessary to collect charges and implied that the cost of collection would be enormous. I am satisfied that this should not be the case. Local authorities already collect a variety of revenues for a wide range of services through rates, rents, water charges and so on. Various methods of collection have evolved to suit circumstances in different areas. It would be quite wrong to seek to impose a standard pattern when it comes to collecting charges under this Bill. I am sure that the best and most economic arrangement for this is something which the local authorities can best decide for themselves.
Deputy Flynn, in a colourful speech, saw the payment of charges by instalments leading to all kinds of difficulties. It will be for the local authorities to decide whether or not to have a system of instalments. It will be up to them to devise and operate a system and we have enough confidence in the elected members of local authorities and the managers to believe that the task will be well within their grasp.
I hope I have covered points raised by Deputies. Many of them are members of local authorities and are rightly concerned. We took some care in the preparation of notes for this speech but if there are some points which have not been properly clarified then the Minister will deal with them on Committee Stage. I commend the Bill to the House.