In 1993, when Parliament approved the Local Councils Act, the context was fitting. The public administration was bureaucratically obese and it was only a long and winding queue that connected the service provider, that is, ministries and departments, with the citizen.

In the first years, local councils worked hard to decentralise the provision of basic services while embellishing localities. Such efforts not only made public service delivery more effective and efficient but also instilled in people a sense of belonging and pride in their locality.

More than two decades later, however, there are serious doubts about whether local councils are still as effective and whether the local public service delivery workflow can still afford the existence of local councils.

In recent years, the public service delivery at central and local government level developed in opposing ways.

Centrally, the government introduced one-stop shops, online forms and 24/7 access while delegating the delivery of critical services to authorities and private entities. Though not all pursuits were successful, one cannot deny that public services are indeed closer to the public.

In the meantime, local government has trudged on in delivering nine-to-five services and administering a remit that is limited to basic road maintenance, traffic and electricity in rural roads, embellishment of public spaces and waste collection.

It is not just the law that limits the remit of local councils but also their financial clout. Councils –which still depend on the central government for their budget – are heavily in debt, to the tune of more than €22 million, according to the latest data.

Moreover, while the central government is pushing to introduce simplification measures and ease the administrative burden, local government is staggering under the weight of increasing bureaucracy. For a population of slightly more than 400,000, there are 68 local councils, subordinate administrative committees for larger hamlets and five regional committees.

Central and local government are not sitting at the same table. This is being translated into frequent clashes. When the central government published a draft Paceville master plan, the St Julian’s local council said it had not been consulted in advance by the Planning Authority.

Local councils are also frequently at loggerheads with the central government over parking issues. Recently, the Sliema local council lambasted the Planning Authority for granting bars and restaurants permits to set up tables and chairs on public parking spaces.  Both local and central government have valid arguments. While the local council is right to voice residents’ parking concerns, Sliema’s catering businesses depend on the footfall generated by outside dining areas,  a critical element of the tourism product.

The Valletta mayor complained that residential parking bays were cleared during events related to the EU presidency. Of course, this is a sore point because, apart from being a residential area, Valletta is also the capital where certain events are held and attended by dignitaries, with all the inconvenience that brings.

Also, when complaining that residential parking is being reduced, the council should also investigate abuse. For instance, it is common knowledge that residents who move out of Valletta – such as the mayor himself – still retain their resident parking permit. There are also residents who park in  white bays to leave the residents’ blue and green slots vacant.

It is through serious dialogue – and not finger-pointing – that such concerns should be addressed.