'Bill only meant to fit government's interests'

Labour MP Carmelo Abela told Parliament on Wednesday that the Bill amending the Local Council Act was partisan and was only meant to fit the government interests, ultimately taking control of local councils and making them resemble a government department.

Speaking during the debate on the second reading of the Bill, Mr Abela said the Bill also increases ministerial discretion. The fact that executive secretaries would now be reporting to the Local Councils Departments meant that their loyalties would lie with the government. Dr Abela questioned whether the Local Council Association, which represented mayors and councillors from both political parties, agreed with the major proposed amendments.

Residents often had two main complaints against councils: the warden system, and the fact that any suggestions they put forward were not dealt with promptly.

The perception was that wardens were a money-making machine, even if it had been said time and time again that this was not the case. A true reform would be to change the present system which makes wardens' wages dependent on the number of tickets they issue.

There also had to be systems in place to ensure these complaints were dealt with promptly. Efficiency in government must increase, as part of the councils' tasks depended on government authorities. The amendments promised a speedy response, but this had been promised since the councils' inception 15 years ago.

The government had to take the responsibility, rather than passing it to local councils.

The government had promised road maintenance works in 26 roads in Marsascala, but only nine had been done. Even worse, residents of Vittorio Cassar Street had written to the Prime Minister to complain about the state of the road, only to receive a letter from his secretariat saying this was within the remit of the local council. It was apparent that they had never seen this road.

After having set up the local council system, it seemed the government had a change of heart and was trying to regain control.

In 15 years, many districts, particularly those in the south which were often forgotten by the government, had improved drastically. This was thanks to local councils. However, people still needed more education on the role of such council.

The reintroduction of special funds was a good thing, even if this was yet another U-turn by the government. Mr Abela praised the Meusac unit which was there to help local councils to tap EU funds.

Turning to bring-in sites, he said it was ironic that the government praised this initiative, but then the funds they made available to the localities which had introduced them were miserly. So much so that local councils did not have enough money to cater for this service. The government blamed the councils and this was dishonest.

The government had passed on certain responsibilities to local councils, some of which had already taken the initiative on. This included promoting a social policy. Mr Abela said he hoped that this was not being done to cover up government deficiencies.

The government had to help councils fulfil their duties and often in the form of financial aid. If it were not ready to do so, it would be better not to propose any amendments. Social policy had always been a priority for Labour Party candidates.

The government even tried to regulate the time when councils met. This was too much. It showed the government did not treat councils as local government.

Mr Abela asked whether there was a less complicated way to organise the councils, even though it was true that residents in some areas of large villages sometimes felt left out. Generally, he said, the people appreciated the work of the councils, and, therefore, both parties had to do all they could to strengthen them for communities to prosper.

Nationalist MP Frans Agius called upon the opposition to clearly state whether it is in favour or against the Bill, noting that once again the central government was seeking to decentralise power and allowing decisions to be taken without incurring unnecessary delays.

The Bill rested on three principles: subsidiarity, solidarity and sustainability. It ensured all residents were represented even those living in hamlets on the boundaries of towns and villages. This would be done through the representation of these residents on council committees so that their needs would be adequately addressed.

It was important for citizens to know who to approach with their difficulties and in this respect it was necessary to indicate clearly what falls within the responsibilities of the councils and that of the central government. At the same time, where the council failed to act, the central government would have the discretion to implement the required works and charge the cost to the council.

Dr Agius said Gozo was a fine example of good administration. This region had taken a good advantage not only in respect of its financing but also of the opportunities given to the councils to better develop their locality.

Some localities were also faced with an influx of seasonal residents who put more pressure on the infrastructure. These towns required particular measures to help them address these needs.

He called upon local councils to follow a policy of cooperation, not only on a horizontal level, that is with other councils but also on a vertical level with NGOs in order to make better use of the resources available.

In council elections, the electorate should vote for persons who are deserving of such posts irrespective of their political or social affiliations. Any obstacles which indirectly discourage persons who would make good candidates were to be addressed. Yet, councillors were also to show their commitment and to stay in contact with residents throughout their term of office and not only at election time.

The proposed code of ethics ensured better quality councillors. Such a code ought to incorporate the manner in which a councillor is to operate and engage with other councillors as well as residents.

The past 15 years indicate a track record that established the sustainability of councils. Efficiency had increased and in general residents were satisfied with the services provided by the councils.

Dr Agius joined Mr Abela in asking the government to pay immediate attention to Vittorio Cassar Road in Marsascala saying this street was in a disastrous state.

The Bill ensured councils were empowered to tap European funds and to enter into public private partnerships. Moreover, the council that was closest to the residents would participate in the education development of the country through the implementation of life-long learning.

Charles Buhagiar (PL) said issues such as the allocation of a role to each councillor had been in practice for years, and the opposition agreed with such practice.

Fifteen years ago, when local councils were established, Labour was in favour of the idea. What the party was against was political parties contesting the elections.

It was good to have locals dealing with the problems, as they knew more about them than any minister could. The downside was that they had been given excessive responsibilities, such as those related to infrastructure. These had not been in a good state in the first place, and the miserly funds made it difficult to do anything about them.

Some localities still suffered because of this. The government had allocated special funds to these problems, but these had been stopped for a while, although they seemed to have been re-activated.

A fundamental problem was the lack of human and financial resources. There had been schemes to help boost human resources within local councils, but while some had made good use of industrial workers, others did not do so well.

A serious problem was the coordination of utilities and service providers. In 1996, the Labour government had set up a coordination unit to tackle this issue. Problems arose when there was no one to prioritise matters. Although councils did some of the coordination, there was a lack of resources. Without increasing the resources of the councils, the government continued to increase their responsibilities.

Concluding, Mr Buhagiar said the Bill proposed that Malta be divided into different regions. This was positive as some works could be carried out over the whole region. The thing was that government departments were also divided into regions and, therefore, these had to fit into one regional framework. However, it wasn't specified how many regions there would be, and how they would be divided. The way it was drafted in the Bill, the minister could change the regions as he wished, which did not make sense. The initiative was good, but needed to be discussed in further detail.

Mr Buhagiar was still in possession when the House rose at 9 p.m. The debate resumes on Monday.