Nationalist MP Robert Arrigo yesterday voiced concern on the problems caused by construction equipment in Sliema.

Speaking during the debate on second reading of the Bill amending the Local Councils Act, Mr Arrigo said that with a meagre fee of Lm1 (€2.33) a day, a contractor would not mind keeping a crane stationary for months on end in a street, blocking it and causing inconvenience to residents.

The reform did not address problems created by construction equipment in the various localities.

He said that local councils had often been rendered as a customer-care service. There were government agencies that were ignoring local councils, and he criticised ADT for carrying out works in Sliema without informing the council.

Mr Arrigo called for a clearer explanation of the concept of holding elections in hamlets. Citing rumours about Qui-Si-Sana, he asked whether this would apply to traditional hamlets or whether parishes in any locality would be considered as hamlets. He claimed that this went against the concept of local government.

No major infrastructural works had been carried out in the Sliema-St Julians area over the past 10 years.

Since councillors would be paid for their services, council meetings should at least be held every fortnight and not on a monthly basis.

Concluding, Mr Arrigo said local councils were shouldering a lot of responsibilities, and if they had to function as local government, the central government would have to trust them and avoid interfering in their work.

Earlier, continuing his speech from last Wednesday, Nationalist MP Frederick Azzopardi said the various reforms sought to improve on the service offered to residents, and would be updated periodically. He suggested that when a project would take more than eight years to pay off, a referendum would be held. There should also be a code of ethics and a code of practice for councillors.

The reforms also made it possible for those in the public sector, or in some way in government employ, to attend official council meetings without taking time off or facing wage deductions.

Mr Azzopardi said that compared to 15 years ago, many localities were irrecognisable and, hopefully, in 10 to 15 years' time this would also be the case.

Some councils had recognised the benefits to be derived from the EU. San Lawrenz in Gozo, he said, was proof of this. The church façade and paintings by Giuseppe Calì would be restored through the European Regional Development Fund, with an allocation expected to amount to some €443,000.

Nationalist MP Jesmond Mugliett said that local councils had managed to integrate and work with synergy with civil society. They had given an identity to the localities they represented. This had also resulted in twinning arrangements with localities in other countries.

Local councils were a point of reference in town planning.

They promoted open areas, Mepa audit plans and construction of roads. It was positive to note that councillors often had to mediate to avoid conflicts regarding feasts and local celebrations.

Local councils were a source of providing information and education. He claimed, however, that funds spent on local libraries were a joke. These often had obsolete and tattered books.

One also had to reconsider how local councils could promote sports activities in the same way that they promoted cultural activities.

Mr Mugliett said that one negative aspect was that polarisation had infiltrated local councils. There were councils which decided on certain issues in a partisan manner. Other issues concentrated on lack of accountability. The reform did not address how abuses were to be tackled when there were no checks and balances.

One had to ensure that public-private partnership projects would benefit localities, and not hurt people as in the case of speed cameras. One had to check on how local councils spent income derived from traffic fines and speed cameras.

He agreed that executive secretaries could be transferred from one council to another. They had to be answerable to the department of local government which paid their salaries.

Mr Mugliett said that the clause whereby any government department could carry out a function which a council failed to deliver despite warnings by the regulator was controversial and dangerous. The expenses were to be deducted from the financial allocation of the council. The Bill was giving absolute authority to the regulator, with no redress given to the council.

One also had to ensure that funds allocated for non-urban areas were spent accordingly.

Mr Mugliett concluded that the Bill was a step in the right direction.