Call for extension of submission deadline to Smiddy Review Group

Given that the Cork Boundary Review Group was announced on 15 January and afforded nine months to report, the deadline for the receipt of submissions should be pushed back beyond the deadline of Friday 27 February, as the timeframe is too tight.

 

At the moment, different information sessions have been organised (e.g. Monday 23 February, 8:00pm at the Imperial Hotel) and I think it is appropriate that people and stakeholders be given the chance to process this information and put together well-considered submissions as opposed to rushing them.

 

The future governance of Cork is at stake here and if we want the Smiddy Review Group to base its recommendations on evidence and research, then it makes sense that the submissions be based on evidence and research.

 

Within the Terms of Reference there are many layers which go beyond the two fundamental questions – Should the city boundary be extended? and Should the City Council and County Council be amalgamated? Under points 5 and 6 of the Terms of Reference there are details to be considered about finance, structure, municipal districts, a metropolitan district, local democracy, governance and economies of scale. These all warrant close attention and with a nine-month window to produce the report there is no need to rush the submissions into the very start of the process.

 

Also, the outcome of this process could have far-reaching consequences for Cork city and county for the next 50 years so we need to get it right. As we have seen in the area of planning, bad decisions do have consequences and can be very expensive (and sometimes impossible) to reverse.

 

In the words of Benjamin Franklin, ‘take the time for all things; great haste makes great waste.’

Evidence lacking to support 'Big is Better' folklore

This article first appeared in The Irish Times on 3 February 2015 with the title 'Cork's boundaries must make for a living city'.

On 15 January Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Alan Kelly TD, announced the appointment of a statutory committee of experts to review the Cork city boundary and other local government arrangements, specifically the option of unifying the existing city and county structures. The minister spoke of the importance that both Cork city and county would not be held back in terms of economic progress, the implication being that the current structural arrangements are an impediment to development. That may well be the case but, in my opinion, structure is only one part of the story. The primary impediment to progress is the local government system itself. Cork wants to become a strong, vibrant European metropolitan region. Across Europe where you have strong metropolitan regions, you invariably have strong local government with directly elected mayors, significant resources, autonomy from the centre and responsibility for a wide range of functions including transport, policing, education and tourism. We have a tendency in Ireland to focus on micro-level debates on structure and form to such an extent that we miss the bigger macro-level issues. At no point do we step back and ask more fundamental questions like: What kind of local government system do we want in 21^st century Ireland? What services should that local government system be providing? What is the role of the state? What is the optimal scale and scope of government? I believe if we are able to provide answers to these questions and establish first principles, then structures will follow more naturally.

On the specific question of whether Cork city needs a boundary extension, I think the answer is yes. It has been 50 years since we had an extension, much has changed and the city has outgrown its boundary. Most people living in Cork suburbs such as Togher, Doughcloyne, Douglas, Donnybrook, Grange and Rochestown regard themselves as living in the city but this is not necessarily the case. Ironically, the introduction of the local property tax has been key to making some people understand that they live in the county council jurisdiction as opposed to the city. Back in 2012, the then local government minister, Phil Hogan, agreed that a boundary extension was required in Cork and he gave the city and county councils five years to draft an acceptable plan. This was never likely to happen. The boundary has been a divisive issue for years in local Cork politics with the county perceiving an extension as a ‘land grab’ and being fearful of a significant loss of commercial rates. Minister Kelly is right to step in and try to drive the process with greater urgency.

The second issue is more complex. The minister has asked the review group, chaired by Alf Smiddy, to consider the option of unifying the city and county structures ‘in view of the potential benefits such as strengthening local government, elimination of administrative duplication, improved service delivery, greater efficiency, economies of scale and more cohesive and effective economic development.’ In terms of strengthening local government, I return to my earlier point about the local government system as a whole and its capacity. If you have two local authorities such as Cork City and County Council within a local government system where councils lack autonomy, have very few powers and are centrally controlled then merging them into one authority without altering the system achieves very little. The other arguments around efficiency and economies of scale warrant close examination. We might intuitively think that merging two local authorities into one would lead to efficiencies but public policy should not be formulated on the basis of intuition. Rather it should be based on evidence. The Smiddy review group has the opportunity to examine evidence from other jurisdictions and take stock of the conceptual and empirical arguments used to champion the case for local government amalgamation. Extensive international research has been conducted on the optimal size of local government and it suggests a weak link between size and costs. In many instances, local authority mergers have limited intrinsic efficiency value and involve large transactional costs. Structural reforms and the redrawing of local authority boundaries are not cost-free exercises and economies of scale tend not to accrue when you have labour-intensive local government service delivery. Two of the UK’s leading experts on local government, Peter John and Colin Copus, have concluded, ‘common folklore in local government is that big is better and more efficient, a conclusion not borne out by research.’ It should also be noted that alternatives to amalgamation exist in the form of collaborative partnerships with shared services. We see this with the Regional Organisation of Councils (ROCs) in Australia (for example in Riverina) and the Agglomeration model in France (for example in Montpellier).

Whatever system of local governance for Cork is recommended by the Smiddy Group, it must be recognised that efficiencies and economies of scale are only part of the story. Weight must also be given to socio-economic considerations (are the arrangements consistent with contemporary living in terms of work, retail and leisure patterns in society?) and political-democratic considerations (are the arrangements consistent with the idea of a ‘natural community’ or a ‘perceived sense of community’?).

After all, local government does not exist solely for the delivery of local public services; it also has a democratic value as a counterpoise against centralisation. Of all the units of local government, cities are recognised as being the pre-eminent local institutions. The sense of place is at its most heightened and cities – if given sufficient power through having sizeable populations, budgets and powers – are the most effective counterweight to overbearing central governments. To conclude by paraphrasing C.S. Lewis, Cork is like an egg at present and it cannot go on indefinitely being just an ordinary, decent egg. It must be hatched or go bad.

Election Focus on Cork's Northside

This article appeared as an opinion piece in the Cork Independent on Thursday 15 May 2014

 

 

 

Predicting election outcomes is hazardous and I am reminded of the ancient Chinese poet, Lao Tzu, who said, ‘Those who have knowledge, don’t predict. Those who predict, don’t have knowledge.’ Accordingly, I am not going to make any big predictions here but I will cast a lazy eye over the Cork City Council local electoral areas, beginning today with the Northside. First, I would like to refer back to last week’s column where I spoke of the declining number of candidates seeking local election in Cork city. The number has dropped from 84 candidates in 1974 to 59 in 2009. Thankfully, in 2014, there is an increase in candidate numbers to 65 which is heartening. In the three electoral wards north of the river, 31 candidates will battle it out for 13 seats.

 

In Cork North Central, nine people will be on the ballot paper with five seats up for grabs. Traditionally in Irish elections, incumbents have a significant advantage and it is hard to look past the five sitting councillors. Mick Barry polled spectacularly well in 2009 and, in fact, he was the top vote-getter in the entire city. He was comfortably elected on the first count with one and-a-half quotas and a 26.50% share of the vote. It is inconceivable that Mick Barry, running for the Anti-Austerity Alliance (AAA), would not be elected this time around although he will take nothing for granted and will continue to work hard in his community between now and 23 May. Catherine Clancy was second past the post in this ward in 2009 and polled solidly. This time around there are a number of factors at play, most noticeably the expectation that the Labour Party will suffer in these elections. However, Clancy may well be insulated due her personal popularity and the fact that she has enjoyed a successful twelve months as an excellent and high-profile Lord Mayor. Fine Gael’s Patricia Gosch made the quota on the ninth count five years ago and she has been an active member of the city council since then. She will be confident of retaining her seat. Kenneth O’Flynn of Fianna Fáil and Thomas Gould of Sinn Féin were elected in 2009 without reaching the quota, with first preference votes of 844 and 618 respectively. You would have to imagine that there is a seat for Fianna Fáil in this ward and, as an incumbent, O’Flynn should have an advantage over his party colleague, Dr John Sheehan. Even though Thomas Gould polled modestly in 2009, I have total confidence that he will be returned in 2014. My confidence is based on two reasons – (1) the rising popularity of Sinn Féin and (2) the impressive impact that Gould has made in City Hall over the last five years. And what of the rest? Donnacha Loftus (Fine Gael) and Dr John Sheehan (Fianna Fáil) have impressive local community credentials but I am not convinced that their parties will secure a second seat in the ward and they will find it hard to unseat their incumbent party colleagues. Billy Corcoran is a non-party candidate who has signed the ‘People’s Contract’. His message, for people to empower themselves, is an attractive one but he will struggle to win a seat. The final candidate, Lil O’Donnell, of the Anti-Austerity Alliance is a dark horse in the contest. Not only is she an impressive candidate in her own right but she can anticipate huge help, through transfers, from Mick Barry. When you consider the fact that Barry passed the quota with 775 votes to spare in 2009, you would be foolish to write off O’Donnell’s chances of dramatically claiming a second seat for the AAA.

 

In Cork North East, the four sitting councillors will be hoping to be returned to City Hall. Labour’s John Kelleher topped the poll in 2009 and – like Catherine Clancy – he will be relying on personal popularity outweighing party affiliation. Fianna Fáil’s Tim Brosnan has represented this ward since his breakthrough election in 1991 and, as his party’s sole candidate in the area, he should secure a good vote. Ted Tynan of the Workers’ Party has never been a prolific vote-getter but he is a diligent public representative and, as an alternative voice to the established parties, I think he will make it again. Fine Gael’s Joe Kavanagh was co-opted to council to replace Dara Murphy in 2011 and he has been a strong councillor in the intervening three years. Of course, he many well come under pressure from party colleague, Sue-Ellen Carroll, who is a good candidate. Sinn Féin’s, Stephen Cunningham, will also be in the mix coming down the home straight. I know Stephen as a first year student on the BSc Government degree in UCC and he is intelligent, articulate and hugely committed. Pat Coughlan secured nearly 8% first preference votes for Sinn Féin in this ward in 2009 and if Cunningham can add a few percentage points to this, he may well claim a seat. The question then becomes – at whose expense?

 

With 13 candidates for four seats, it would take a brave (or foolish) person to predict the outcome in Cork North West with any degree of certainty. The picture is confused by the fact that the top two vote getters in 2009, Dave McCarthy (RIP) and Jonathan O’Brien (now in Dáil Éireann) are not in the field. You would have to reckon that there is a seat in this ward for the hard-working Tony Fitzgerald of Fianna Fáil, for Sinn Féin’s Mick Nugent and for a Fine Gael candidate – more than likely incumbent Joe O’Callaghan over Lyndsey Clarke. Former Lord Mayor, Michael O’Connell, will be hopeful of continuing his time on Cork City Council but – like all Labour Party candidates – he will be under some pressure. The unknown dimension in the ward is now the remaining candidates will do and how their performance will impact on the outcome. Not only do you have a second Sinn Féin candidate but there are five non-party hopefuls, a representative from the Workers’ Party and one from the Anti-Austerity Alliance. It could be a case of ‘too many cooks spoiling the broth’ and splintering of votes amongst these candidates could play into the hands of the grateful incumbent councillors.

 

So, that’s a brief summary of the three Northside local electoral areas; next week I will take a look at the Southside areas. Since I started with a quote it’s appropriate to end with one – this time from the Nobel laureate, Nils Bohr, ‘Prediction is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future.’

Who runs for local political office and why?

This article appeared an an opinion piece in the Cork Independent on 8 May 2014

 

Not many people realise it but Irish county councillors have a song in their name. ‘The County Councillors’ Song’ first appeared in the Leinster Leader newspaper on 1 May 1990 and it goes as follows:

 

I am a county councillor, a very public man

To benefit the people I’ll do everything I can;

In all my waking moments for their welfare I will scheme

And in the arms of Morpheus of improvements I will dream.

A local legislator and a man of high renown,

I am the county councillor, the greatest man in town.

 

There are many different things that can be read into this verse, including the presumption at the time that local elected representatives would be male (to this day, women are significantly under-represented in Irish local government). The verse also gives a sense of the dual role of the councillor – on the one hand, ‘a local legislator’ and, on the other hand, a public representative who will do everything ‘to benefit the people.’

 

There is no doubt that these two elements of a councillor’s job serve as motivations for people who are considering standing for election. In other words, some people are driven by a desire to influence a local authority’s policies be it in the area of planning, roads or the environment. Others are driven by the desire to help individual citizens and this client-centred approach is sometimes referred to as the grievance-chaser motivation. Every politician in the country – at local or national level – will tell you that grievance-chasing is a vital aspect of their work in terms of winning re-election. Of course, other motivations might exist outside of the two mentioned above. For example, some people may stand for local election in an attempt to find an alternative route to self-fulfilment.

 

In 2009, before the last local elections, I wrote a book entitled All Politics is Local: A Guide to Local Elections in Ireland with my colleague, Liam Weeks. One of the things we wanted to do was to dig a little deeper into the types of people who stand for local election and what motivates them. We received over 500 responses to our survey which enabled us to come up with the following typology of local election candidates (as opposed to councillors) in Ireland.

 

The Aspirant: Someone not that interested in local office, but who sees it as a useful route to national politics.

 

The Local Broker: Someone looking to represent and fight for the interests of his or her community.

 

Policy-Maker: Someone driven by the desire to change local policies or bye-laws.

 

The Lobbyist: A candidate running to promote the cause of an interest group.

 

The Activist: An individual who enjoys politics and likes to devote time to it.

 

The Loyalist: Someone not particularly keen on electoral office but who runs because of a party request.

 

The Protector: This person runs because of familial links to a politician, either to maintain a tradition of family representation or to ‘protect’ a local seat when a relative transfers to the national arena.

 

The Dissident: Their motivation stems from their falling out with an organisation over an issue, be it a party or a local community group.

 

The Maverick: Their presence in the electoral contest is unpredictable and can be a product of idiosyncratic factors.

 

This classification is based on the actual analysis of candidates’ motivations as opposed to speculation about what drives them. The categories are not exhaustive or mutually exclusive – in other words, a candidate can be a policy-maker, an activist and an aspirant.

 

Whatever motivates people to stand for local elected office, we should be grateful to them. It is a very brave thing to do to put yourself on the ballot paper and lay yourself bare before the electorate. We have too many ‘hurlers on the ditch’ who are happy to criticise but not get involved in any process of change. A healthy democracy requires that we have genuine contests for seats and it is a worrying trend that the number of candidates offering themselves for seats on Cork City Council (31 members) has fallen consistently from 84 in 1974 to 59 in 2009. This represents a 30 per cent decrease in participation in 35 years with a ratio in 2004 of less than two candidates per seat.

 

Over the next two weeks, I will be looking at the 2014 numbers and casting an eye over the city’s six local electoral areas. I do so with admiration and respect for all of the candidates, no matter their personal motivations. The candidates, of course, are only one part of the equation and there is an onus on us to take the election process seriously and exercise our precious right to vote. I concur with Abraham Lincoln who once said, ‘Elections belong to the people. It’s their decision. If they decide to turn their backs on the fire and burn their behinds, then they will just have to sit on their blisters.’

Frankenstein's Monster

This article appeared as an opinion piece in the Cork Independent on 24 April 2014

 

Mary Shelley wrote in Frankenstein that ‘nothing is so painful to the human mind as a great and sudden change.’ Well, the local government landscape in Ireland has been subjected to a massive change – in fact, the most radical structural change since the introduction of the ‘modern’ system of local government in 1898. Mary Shelley’s book was about an eccentric scientist, Victor Frankenstein, who creates a grotesque creature in an unorthodox experiment. In 2014, it is tempting to replace ‘Victor Frankenstein’ with ‘Phil Hogan’ and ‘creature’ with ‘structure’.

 

The changes to the local government landscape come about because of the Local Government Reform Act 2014 and the report of the Local Electoral Area Boundary Committee from May 2013. The main feature of the 2014 legislation is the abolition of town councils. It is remarkable that since the founding legislation in 1898 we have moved from over 600 local authorities to 114 and now down to 31.

 

Why is it the case that local government lacks protection in Bunreacht na hÉireann? The Seanad – a marginally relevant, elitist institution – could not be abolished without reference to the people by way of referendum. Yet, a whole tier of local democracy and 83 directly elected councils can be removed through legislation without reference to the people. Why have town councils died without a discussion? The Dublin-based national media is complicit in this and their refusal to address local government issues is shameful. Of course, part of the reason for this is that there is only one town council in Dublin, in Balbriggan. Predictably, the media has failed to engage with the town council issue and the only matter which is suddenly gaining some traction in the press is the directly elected mayor for the capital.

 

The 2014 act also brings into effect the recommended changes of the Local Electoral Area Boundary Committee. The Cork City Council jurisdiction remains unchanged and the number of councillors is unaltered at 31. However, there is a dramatic change in Cork county, the largest county in Ireland. Local government representation will fall from 156 to 55 - an enormous drop by any standards. The amputation of the county’s twelve town councils - Bandon, Bantry, Clonakilty, Cobh, Fermoy, Kinsale, Macroom, Mallow, Midleton, Passage West, Skibbereen, and Youghal – removes 108 councillors from the equation. We will then be left with a 55-member Cork County Council (an increase in membership from 48) drawn from eight Local Electoral Areas (LEAs). These new LEAs are Blarney-Macroom: 6 seats; Kanturk-Mallow: 6 seats; Fermoy: 6 seats; East Cork: 6 seats; Cobh: 7 seats; Ballincollig-Carrigaline: 10 seats; Bandon-Kinsale: 6 seats; and West Cork: 8 seats. The biggest change is occurring in West Cork. In 2009, West Cork had 12 county councillors drawn from the Bantry and Skibbereen LEAs as well as 27 town councillors from Bantry, Clonakilty and Skibbereen. As a result of local government ‘reform’ West Cork will be left with 8 councillors covering a huge territorial area.

 

The rationale for these sweeping changes is that Big Phil believes, unsurprisingly, that ‘Big is Beautiful’. I think he is misguided in this belief. International evidence refutes the notion that a smaller number of larger local authorities yields improvements, savings and efficiencies. Instead the evidence from other jurisdictions that have been down this road clearly points to the fact that structural reform and the redrawing of local authority boundaries is not a cost-free exercise and frequently results in dis-economies of scale, especially with one-off costs arising from amalgamations.

 

Back in 1924, the Phil Hogan of the day sought to abolish Rural District Councils (RDCs) in the name of efficiency and cost savings. What was really meant of course was centralisation. During the Dáil debate in 1924 on the proposed RDC abolitions, John Daly TD, an Independent from Cork, asked, ‘What would a man from Bantry Bay know about affairs in Araglen?’ The world is a smaller place today and so it is easy to poke fun at John Daly but he knew what he was talking about. He finished his contribution to the debate by saying – ‘Local representatives know their area best of all and should be given the power to tackle local problems appropriately.’ In my humble opinion, this sentence should be pinned to the wall in every office of the Custom House (home of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government).

 

We are on a slippery slope to almost total centralisation of power and Frankenstein’s monster (if not Frankenstein himself) is out of control.

Local Government is a Necessary Bulwark to Safeguard Democracy

This article appeared as an opinion piece in The Irish Times on 7 May 2014

Robert Flack once wrote, ‘Local Government is the foundation of democracy. If it fails. Democracy will fail.’ Unfortunately the foundation of Ireland’s democratic system is a neglected area of study. Local elections in Ireland are somewhat of a mystery to the general public who perceive that the local government system itself and its structures are complex. Many people do not understand this system or what the local authorities actually do. It is therefore not surprising that local elections are either seen as unimportant or irrelevant. This apathy is shared by large portions of the media who opt to analyse local elections merely in the context of what they mean for national politics.

The strongest argument for local government is as an organ of local democracy, whereby councils of elected members make policy decisions on behalf of their local communities. Powers are not retained at central level by national government but are held and maintained by the citizens of each community. Therefore, as well as local government being a means of self-expression, it also serves as a safeguard against central government domination. The spreading of power is a fundamental justification for local government, the argument being that it is dangerous to concentrate power in one organ of the state. Local government also stresses diversity and, for this reason, some of the academic literature refers to it as the ‘government of difference’. In its role as a mouthpiece of shared community interests, a local authority can factor an area’s history, geography, political culture and economy into its decision-making processes.

Regrettably, the Irish model of local government is far removed from the version of community self-government just described. In this country, local government is centrally controlled and is becoming more and more removed from the citizen. Successive governments have prioritised central control over local democracy and have exhibited a consistent lack of respect for sub-national government. This lack of respect was highlighted by a Council of Europe report in 2013 which strongly criticised Ireland for its lack of constitutional protection for sub-national government. Seanad Éireann, a marginally relevant institution, could not abolished without reference to the people by way of referendum. Yet, a whole tier of local democracy and 83 directly elected councils, can be removed through legislation without reference to the people.

The Council of Europe report was also critical of the direction of Ireland’s local government reforms. It commented that the policy paper Putting People First from October 2012 praised decentralisation in spirit but did not provide many concrete stapes in that. Rather, the report noted, some of the actual steps proposed went in the opposite direction and would result in increased centralisation. Most of the provisions of Putting People First came to legislative effect through the Local Government Reform Act 2014, which – amongst other things – abolished all of the country’s town councils and created amalgamations in Waterford, Limerick and Tipperary. Therefore, since the introduction of the ‘modern’ system of local government in 1898, we have moved from over 600 local authorities to 114 and now down to 31 – with minimal debate along the way. We have also casually removed a level of local democracy and have moved from a two-tier system to a single-tier system. This seems a far cry from the vision Fine Gael presented in its 2010 New Politics document which stated, ‘The over-centralisation of government in Ireland is, in our view, inefficient and fundamentally incompatible with a healthy Republic.’ Thus we can conclude, with increased centralisation, our Republic is very ill.

The justification for the abolition of town councils, the most accessible level of our local government system, is that big is better and more efficient. Unfortunately for Minister Hogan there is very limited evidence to support this assertion. In fact, the international evidence tends to refute the notion that a smaller number of larger local authorities yields improvements, savings and efficiencies. Instead the evidence from other jurisdictions that have been down this road clearly points to the fact that structural reform and the redrawing of local authority boundaries is not a cost-free exercise and frequently results in dis-economies of scale, especially with one-off costs arising from amalgamations.

The Minister was correct that change was needed at the town council level but he has opted for amputation over reform and an opportunity has been squandered. Town councils have been the most efficient element within the local government system in terms of being self-financing and maintaining commercial rates at a lower level that their county council counterparts. Removing the rating power from towns will lead to an increase in commercial rates for the hard-pressed business people in the towns of Ireland.

Town or municipal councils should be at the heart of our local government system. The very nature of local government is that civic society is up close and personal. Local councils and the services they provide have a far more immediate, continuous and comprehensive impact on our daily lives than many issues which dominate nationally. Local councils and councillors have to deal with a range of issues and factors that are not of their making and for which they may have no formal responsibility. These issues include migration, multi-culturalism, homelessness, social exclusion and other social problems such as drug addiction, prostitution, and petty crime. Many of the social problems faced by Irish communities today are most sharply evident in urban settings and towns. Sub-county authorities should be strengthened to address these problems. Instead they have been destroyed.

 

Government policies which promote centralisation over local democracy will not serve Ireland well. Have we many centralisation success stories? Has Irish Water had a good start to life? What about the student grant scheme operated through SUSI? Has the driving licence process improved with centralisation? Mahatma Gandhi once stated, ‘The spirit of democracy is not a mechanical thing to be adjusted by abolition forms. It requires change of heart.’ The disrespectful way that central government regards local government has to change before progress can be made. Local government is not a passing luxury; it is a critical element within any country’s democratic system which can safeguard against central domination and absolutism by putting in place a local system of political checks and balances.

 

LOCAL REPRESENTATION DECIMATED: AN ANALYSIS OF COUNTY CORK

It is clear that the abolition of town councils means nothing in Dublin where there are four big ‘top tier’ local authorities. The obsession there is with the issue of a directly elected mayor. Meanwhile, across Ireland, more fundamental representation is at stake. For example, let us look at the county of Cork – the biggest county in Ireland.

Excluding entirely the city area (where the number of councillors remains the same at 31) we can see that local government representation falls from 156 to 55 – a massive drop by any standards.

 

At the 2009 local elections, 48 members were elected to Cork County Council through the following Local Electoral Areas (LEAs):

·         Bandon LEA - 3 seats

·         Blarney LEA - 4 seats

·         Carrigaline LEA - 6 seats

·         Macroom LEA - 4 seats

·         Midleton LEA - 6 seats

·         Bantry LEA - 5 seats

·         Skibbereen LEA - 7 seats

·         Fermoy LEA - 4 seats

·         Kanturk LEA - 4 seats

·         Mallow LEA - 5 seats

 

In addition to Cork County Council, there were 12 town councils – Bandon, Bantry, Clonakilty, Cobh, Fermoy, Kinsale, Macroom, Mallow, Midleton, Passage West, Skibbereen, and Youghal – with 9 elected members on each, for a total of 108 town councillors.

 

We will see a massive change in 2014, especially in West Cork.

 

With the amputation of the town councils, we will be left with a 55-member Cork County Council, drawn from 8 LEAs.

 

·         Blarney-Macroom: 6 seats

·         Kanturk-Mallow: 6 seats

·         Fermoy: 6 seats

·         East Cork: 6 seats

·         Cobh: 7 seats

·         Ballincollig-Carrigaline: 10 seats

·         Bandon-Kinsale: 6 seats

·         West Cork: 8 seats

In 2009, West Cork had 12 county councillors drawn from the Bantry and Skibbereen LEAs as well as 27 town councillors from Bantry, Clonakilty and Skibbereen. As a result of local government ‘reform’ West Cork will be left with 8 councillors covering an enormous jurisdiction. Is this progress?

 

Back in 1924, the Phil Hogan of the day sought to abolish Rural District Councils in the name of efficiency and cost savings. What was really meant of course was centralisation. The Free State government had already demonstrated its centralist tendencies by passing in 1923 a remarkable piece of legislation which gave the Minister the power to dissolve local authorities if he deemed them to be underperforming.

 

During the Dail debate in 1924 on the abolition of Rural District Councils, John Daly TD, an Independent from Cork, asked, ‘What would a man from Bantry Bay know about affairs in Araglen?’

 

The world is a smaller place today and we have a continuous 24/7 news cycle as well as the internet and Twitter so it is easy to poke fun at John Daly but he knew what he was talking about. He finished his contribution to the debate by saying – ‘Local representatives know their area best of all and should be given the power to tackle local problems appropriately.’

 

In my humble opinion, this sentence should be pinned to the wall in every office of the Custom House.