Opposition spokesmen yesterday told Parliament that the Bill amending the Local Councils Act gave the Prime Minister wide discretionary powers which were contrary to the principle of subsidiarity and restricted the councils in the appointment of their executive secretaries.
The spokesman also targeted Mepa and the Transport Authority for dragging their feet in issuing necessary permits which made councils lose much-needed EU and local funds.
Labour MP Charles Buhagiar said these authorities must understand that council projects were aimed to improve the locality's infrastructure and the quality of life of its residents. Consequently such applications should be given priority and processed with urgency.
A number of applications presented by local councils before Mepa had been pending for some time and this could lead to possible or promised funds being lost.
He said the Xgħajra local council had presented an application before Mepa for the construction of a sports complex which was to be financed through the Smart City project. Such funds could be lost if Mepa took a long time to determine such applications.
Mr Buhagiar urged the Transport Authority to establish formal procedures that are to be followed when local councils need to seek its approval for projects such as the fixing of pavements.
He augured that there would not be any abuses through the introduction of the concept of hamlets and the establishment of a particular committee to address their needs. This could be addressed if formal requirements were indicated for an area to be considered as a hamlet.
Mr Buhagiar disapproved of the proposal of establishing a pool of persons from among whom councils are to select their executive secretary, saying councils ought not to be restricted in their selection.
The role of the executive secretary was crucial for the good administration of the council and consequently, while such a pool of persons may be made available, councils should not to be limited to select their executive secretary from only such a group of persons. This proposed pool eroded the power which has for years been exercised by the councils and went against the principle of subsidiarity.
Councils need to be more aware of the sources of funding that is available to them. These included not only government funding but also funds that are available to them through the EU or even on the local scene.
While appreciating the work carried out by Meusac in assisting local councils to submit projects for funding from the EU, he also called upon Meusac to make councils more aware of available EU funds. This information should be given well in advance through empowering them to recognise and tap into such funds. He also called upon the Department of Local Councils to do the same in relation to locally available funds, such as those funds available from Mepa under the CPPS or UIF funds.
Mr Buhagiar criticised the use of tariffs by councils to finance their administration. Such schemes were only inventions and unreasonable.
While appreciating that some tariffs should be imposed, he noted that the aim of local enforcement was to educate residents and is not to be turned into a means of income for the council. According to information given in Parliament, councils have earned between €200,000 and €300,000 from penalties and fines. This was unreasonable and the system of local wardens and local enforcement had to be re-examined and discussed further.
Mr Buhagiar said that the Bill included some good initiatives but still needed to be reviewed and refined.
Luciano Busuttil (PL) said that the opposition was all out for the reform of local councils to be at the service of the public but this was not forthcoming in the Bill.
It was paramount to reform the system of local enforcement. This had not happened. The current system was based on public property data which the government passed on to a private company at a great cost.
The opposition also expected a reform on the joint Electrical Lighting System committees. One had to manage public funds properly.
He said that the ADT was still refusing to process a parking facility application by the Ħamrun council, with the excuse that irregularities had not been rectified when these irregularities were present in many other localities.
It was not right that a council had to wait for seven years to get its application approved by Mepa.
Dr Busuttil showed his concern on the discretionary powers that the Bill was giving the minister. The proposal on setting up committees for hamlets was very vague and it was not right that the minister had the power to set regulations for elections in these hamlets.
The executive secretary was already empowered through the financial regulations to confront the council. There was no need to turn the executive secretary into a watchdog when his actions were not going to be under public scrutiny.
The government had included a number of amendments which did not form part of the document presented by the government after the consultation process. Dr Busuttil said the proposal that the executive secretary would be chosen from a pool of persons chosen by the minister was purely political. Mayors had unanimously disagreed with this proposal. It was clear that the minister had less trust in local councils.
The minister also had discretionary powers in the employment of council staff. He proposed that the Department for Local Council be given more human and other resources to be able to act as an effective watchdog.
All councils cherished the social aspect of their respective communities but the government had failed to give them the necessary resources to develop this sector properly. Heritage entities had to be obliged to work hand in hand with local councils in renewing heritage sites.
The document had envisaged that Malta and Gozo had to be divided in five regions. However the Bill did not specify this number and how these would be composed. This was being left at the discretion of the Prime Minister.
Criteria had to be established on granting special funds. There were local councils which did not benefit from special funds used for road construction because no criteria had been established.
A survey carried out by the Ħamrun local council had estimated that four million vehicles passed through St Joseph High Road every year. This necessitated extra funds to do maintenance work. He asked whether the government had made any financial estimates on the cost of implementing the reform.
Concluding, Dr Busuttil said that, if councils had to remain autonomous, there could not be any imposition of restrictions on them.
Roderick Galdes (PL) criticised Resources Minister George Pullicino for delivering a negative assessment of local councils while claiming that the government was acting as a saviour. It was not fair for the departments falling under Mr Pullicino's aegis to shove their problems at the feet of local councils.
There were ministers who were today showing a lack of trust in these councils, which had given a sense of identity to their locality and had set civic attitudes.
The two main political parties contributed to this reform but they had to agree how councils had to function. Their autonomy had to be strengthened. Flexibility had to be instilled in decision-making and in managing the locality. Mr Galdes said the executive secretary was the fulcrum of the whole system. He knew the locality's problems and had the expertise on how to solve them. It was a mistake to consider transferring executive secretaries from one council to another. However, it was right to monitor their work ensuring that citizens were getting value for money.
When in 1997 the then Labour government had encouraged workers in the public service to work with local councils only one had applied. This concept was now being applied extensively.
Local councils had limited budgets and so could not carry out the infrastructural work they had wished to perform.
Mr Galdes proposed that, where the government failed to complete local projects, the council had to have the right to finish the work and claim the funds from the government.
He criticised the Lands Department for being inefficient and lacking human resources in passing on certain heritage sites to local councils. He said that the Urban Improvement Fund belonged to the councils and not to Mepa or the central government.
Speed cameras, which were supposed to safeguard citizens' health, were being used as cash cows. Local wardens were being placed near roundabouts issuing traffic tickets instead of giving a service to the people in the locality.
Mr Galdes concluded by saying that local councils should be given a say in the housing sector, alleviating social problems. He called for more investment in heritage sites.