Sir, – Una Mullally's article "Neglected Dublin merits a dedicated minister" (Opinion & Analysis, May 23rd) makes interesting reading. It is important to note that Ireland is the most centralised country in the EU. The Civil Service and many TDs want a centralised system with little accountability and transparency.
At local government level, we have very few powers, and for years I have been lobbying Government for legislation in areas such as noise pollution, traffic management, trees and tourism, but our Ministers are always too busy to deal with these amendments to legislation. All other EU countries have local authorities with the power to deal with these issues.
As long as our Government wants to run Leinster House like a super-county council, we will have inertia in Dublin and other Irish cities. – Yours, etc,
Cllr MARY FREEHILL,
Dublin 6.
Sir, – Michael J McEvoy (May 25th) calls for a new political party based in Munster to fight for its interests.
Could this be the first step in making the dream of those “People’s Republic of Cork” T-shirts a reality? – Yours, etc,
RONAN McDERMOTT,
Rathgar, Dublin 6.
Sir, – Michael J McEvoy’s suggestion that the Government is exclusively and unjustifiably devoted to the needs of our capital city reveals an unfortunate misunderstanding of the nature of public spending and investment decisions.
Expenditure on public services, such as transport or healthcare, has the greatest impact in densely populated areas, as there are more people who can be served by the same infrastructure. Where proximity to a hospital or railway matters, there are huge economies of scale to be enjoyed in places like Dublin, where people in abundance surround such infrastructure. As he laments the state of public service expenditure in Cork to the point of advocating a “new political party that is based in Munster and fights for its interests”, Mr McEvoy should thus be advised that were one to gather all of the public service investment in the whole of Munster into an area the size of a small city, he is likely to find it analogous to that spent in Dublin, as both regions account for roughly a quarter each of the national population.
The difference is not the amount spent, but rather the efficacy that such investment has in areas of differing population density.
The fact that Cork, whose urban population is a tenth that of Dublin’s, lacks the light railway service of our capital, can perhaps be explained with reference to the lack of such a service in Dublin when it was that size. – Yours, etc,
CHRISTOPHER
McMAHON,
Castleknock,
Dublin 15.
Sir, – Michael J McEvoy refers critically to a strange concept, to me anyway, of “the Dublin government”. He bemoans the allocation of services to the more than one million people who live and work there. Strangely he does not bemoan the significant transfers of taxes from Dublin to the rest of Ireland. Nor do I. I support both devolution of powers and decentralisation. I support proper regional development.
As well as its intrinsic value to Ireland when that happens, Dublin City Council might get the approximately €28 million to €30 million a year that Government refuses to pay on its properties in lieu of commercial rates. Of course Government still expects the same services as every other office user. Since that decision was first made, Dublin City Council has lost just under €1 billion – apart altogether from the approximately €8 billion net it has lost due to the abolition of domestic rates.
For Ireland’s sake, therefore, as well as Dublin’s, let us have real regional development. Let us have real reform of local government, and let us have an honest debate on how we finance it all. – Yours, etc,
Cllr DERMOT LACEY,
Donnybrook,
Dublin 4.