Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage debate -
Tuesday, 17 Jan 2023

Local Government Performance Indicators and Public Spending Code: National Oversight and Audit Commission

Chairman

I hope members had a nice Christmas break. This is our first public meeting of 2023. We are joined today by representatives of the National Oversight and Audit Commission, NOAC. I welcome the chairperson, Mr. Michael McCarthy, board members, Ms Margaret Lane and Ms Fiona Quinn, and head of the NOAC secretariat, Ms Claire Gavin. They have supplied us with the most recent reports of NOAC's oversight of the performance of local authorities, a briefing document and an opening statement, all of which have been circulated to members.

Before we commence, I remind members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the place in which the Parliament has chosen to sit, namely, Leinster House, in order to participate in public meetings. Witnesses attending in the committee room are protected by an absolute privilege in respect of their contributions to today's meeting. This means they have an absolute defence against any defamation action in respect of anything they say at the meeting. Both members and witnesses are expected not to abuse the privilege they enjoy and it is my duty as Chairman to ensure this privilege is not abused. Therefore, if any statements are potentially defamatory in regard to an identifiable person or entity, speakers will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction. Members and witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

The format we will follow for the meeting is that, following Mr. McCarthy's statement, members will have seven or eight minutes each to ask questions and get answers. This will give us time to get to all the members. I invite Mr. McCarthy to make his opening statement on behalf of NOAC.

Mr. Michael McCarthy

I thank the Chairman and members for the invitation to meet with us today to discuss the work of the National Oversight and Audit Commission, particularly our recent Local Authority Performance Indicator Report 2021 and Public Spending Code Report 2021. I am the chair of NOAC and I am joined today by two of my fellow board members: Ms Margaret Lane, chair of the financial management and performance working group; and Ms Fiona Quinn, the officer of the Minister, who is an assistant secretary in the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. I emphasise that Ms Quinn is here today in her capacity as a board member of NOAC and not in her capacity as an official of the Department. I am also joined by Ms Claire Gavin, head of the NOAC secretariat.

Committee members may have been in attendance at our appearance before the committee in May 2022. By way of background, the Local Government Reform Act 2014 introduced significant changes to a wide range of aspects of the local government system, including matters of accountability and oversight. In that regard, the Act provided for the establishment of NOAC in July 2014 as an independent statutory body to provide oversight of the local government sector in Ireland. Its functions are wide ranging, involving the scrutiny of performance generally and financial performance specifically. NOAC also has a role in supporting best practice, overseeing implementation of national local government policy, and monitoring and evaluating implementation of corporate plans, adherence to service level agreements and public service reform by local government bodies. In addition, a Minister may request that NOAC prepare a report relevant to its functions on any specified aspect of local government.

NOAC's role in respect of local government policy is to oversee how national policy is implemented by local government bodies. NOAC does not have a function of providing input to the development of policy for the sector. Furthermore, NOAC has no role in decisions around funding models or levels of funding for local authorities. As prescribed in the Act, NOAC does not apply sanctions, penalties or fines or examine individual cases. Rather, our role is to act as an oversight body. Most of the work of NOAC is carried out through its four working groups. These deal with local government governance, efficiency and reform, performance indicators, communications and customer survey, and financial management and performance.

NOAC's membership is statutorily prescribed as comprising a minimum of six and a maximum of nine members. There is provision for the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage to increase, by order, the number of members to a maximum of 12 for a period of up to two years. Currently, NOAC has eight members, including the chairperson, and there has been one recent vacancy on the board. Vacancies that arise are advertised by the Public Appointments Service, PAS, and appointments are made by the Minster for Housing, Local Government and Heritage. NOAC is funded from the Local Government Fund and our allocation for 2022 was €350,000. There is a massive appetite to grow the role of NOAC. This can be seen from the ambitious work programme we have completed, the array of stakeholder engagements and the number of reports we have undertaken and published. We are currently finalising our new two-year work programme.

We are invited here today to discuss two very important reports that NOAC publishes. The first is the annual performance indicator report. On 4 November 2022, NOAC published its eighth such report. In its 2021 report, NOAC examined 42 indicators under 11 headings in order to provide objective information on local authorities' performance. This allows the authorities to view the areas in which they are performing well and review any areas in which performance could be improved. The indicators record local authority activity in respect of certain aspects of their wide-ranging functions. The report also takes account of the level of uncertainly and instability whereby the local government sector has had to adapt and respond as we lurch from one crisis to another without drawing a breath. NOAC uses the data from the performance indicator reports to build profiles of each local authority and uses that information as a basis for the scrutiny meetings held with the chief executives and management teams of the authorities.

The other report we are discussing today is the Public Spending Code Report 2021, which NOAC published on 24 November 2022. The public spending code process provides an opportunity for Departments and agencies to review on an annual basis the decisions made and expenditure incurred in the previous year and to identify any areas that require attention. The code was developed by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, which provides guidance on carrying out the quality assurance process. The information provided is used to produce a composite report based on the Department's requirements. The code applies to both current and capital expenditure and to all public bodies in receipt of public funds.

According to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, the code brings together in one place details of the obligations of those responsible for spending public money. Local authorities completed their reports in accordance with the guidance issued by the County and City Management Association finance committee in agreement with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. Once the report has been complied, it is sent by NOAC to the Department. The reports are available to the public, along with all its other reports and minutes of NOAC meetings, on our website, noac.ie.

I hope this has given members some useful information. I look forward to the discussion to follow with committee members on the work outlined.

Chairman

I thank Mr. McCarthy very much. I will move to the members now. I forgot to bring my meeting schedule with me. I will go from memory and if I get it wrong, members can pull me up on it. I will start with the Fianna Fáil slot, which will be taken by Deputy McAuliffe.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

I thank out witnesses for being here today. The first question I want to ask Mr. McCarthy draws from my experience both on the Committee of Public Accounts and this committee regarding the whole area of local government auditing. There have been several media reports around different accounts of spending in different local authorities. I know from our discussions at the Committee of Public Accounts that there is a feeling that the local authorities are not accountable to the Comptroller and Auditor General. However, because of the resources that are available, for example, to members of the Committee of Public Accounts in the form of the Comptroller and Auditor General, who is the independent liaison to Oireachtas Members and so on, a far greater level of scrutiny is possible for those bodies that are accountable to the Comptroller and Auditor General. On the other hand, for the local authority system we have a scenario where, effectively, local authority members are competing with other demands they have on their time. There might be only one or two members on an audit committee. The amount of time available in a monthly council meeting is quite restricted and, therefore, to have discussions around audit reports and so forth is more limited. Has NOAC looked at the scrutiny and the resources available for independent scrutiny at local government level?

Mr. Michael McCarthy

I thank Deputy McAuliffe very much for those thoughtful remarks. In terms of the auditing of local government in general, for example, we have 31 local authorities and 31 audit committees. There is the local government audit service in terms of it being well-audited in that respect. In terms of the resources around that, if there was a decision to be made, for example, to bring local authorities into the Committee of Public Accounts, which would certainly be a policy decision, I do not think resources are an issue in that sense.

I get entirely what the Deputy is saying in terms of the elected members' role. I think most people in this room have experience of that. One is pulled in five or six different directions and all of a sudden there is a specialised topic to which one might have to devote time. From our perspective, one of our key focuses in terms of our current work programme is to engage more with elected members and the elected members' bodies, for example, the Association of Irish Local Government, AILG. In August of last year, we had direct engagement with the chairs of the audit committees of the 31 local authorities. That was the first time from NOAC's perspective that we had that direct engagement. We want to develop that engagement going forward.

Ultimately, a decision about comparing the auditing of local authorities and benchmarking that, for example, with the resources the Committee of Public Accounts has would ultimately be a policy decision to be made by either the Oireachtas or by local governments themselves. However, I would argue that it is well audited as we currently stand.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

I take Mr. McCarthy's point about it being well audited. The second part of an auditing process is holding the auditor's report to some form of democratic accountability. That is the area in which the current system struggles a little bit. RTÉ covered very widely the local government auditor's reports recently in a programme. It created much public concern around some of the decisions different local authorities would have made around land purchases, contracts and so on. I am pointing out that there would appear to be a gap in the local government system where those audit reports are aired and discussed and where people are held to account. It could be very difficult at a local authority where officials and local authority members must work very closely together on projects for them to subsequently be held publicly accountable for decisions that may have gone incorrectly or where there may have been a financial loss. From an oversight perspective, I take on board Mr. McCarthy's point about the audit. It is the democratic holding to account where decisions have gone wrong that I am questioning. Is that a gap Mr. McCarthy also sees from his perspective? Are there any recommendations or is there any possibility of suggestions from NOAC? Is there a possibility of more work being done by NOAC in that space?

Mr. Michael McCarthy

There are two points, essentially. If we take the current affairs programme to which the Deputy referred, it is my view that most, if not all, of the information that was used in terms of that programme was actually pulled from the various reports either from the local government audit service and-or the Local Government Management Agency, LGMA. That provided an element of a window into the operations, if you like, of the system that applies a level of accountability.

Ultimately, I suspect that if it is deemed to be a gap in the system, we are precluded in our role from direct policy by virtue of the Act. There is a provision in the Act for the Minister or any Minister, however, given the array of services that are now available from local government. Once upon a time, it was the Minister with responsibility for the environment and the 30-odd councils whereas now there are so many offerings that it permeates most, if not all, Departments. If there were a situation in the future whereby any particular Minister, not least the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, decided to refer a matter to NOAC, we would have a statutory role in responding to that request. That is one element. The other element is that ultimately, if it is deemed that there is a gap in the system, that would be a policy element for Government. Then, whatever decision is arrived at, we would be duty bound if the Minister asked us to intervene on a particular issue, which we would be more than happy to do.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

I hear what Mr. McCarthy is saying that ultimately the decision to work in this area lies with the Minister and the Department. I will not press him on that. One point I will make to him, though, is that often when there is media coverage of an event, there can be complexities to it that are not often covered in the media. As Mr. McCarthy said, for several of the incidents that were covered and that came out of this arising from the local government auditor's own reports, the complexities of those projects were not perhaps communicated in some of the media coverage.

It is important for local authority members but also in terms of informing the public and having public oversight similar to the Committee of Public Accounts, although I am not suggesting it would be that committee, to have that ability to be able to probe into the decisions and get away from the headlines and get more into the detail. That is a gap that exists. As I said, however, it is a policy matter so I will not press Mr. McCarthy on it.

The second question relates to housing generally. There is a very strong public sector house building programme contained in Housing for All that seems to be operating between local authorities and the Department. We have just completed a round of meetings with different local authorities in which we talked about that programme. From NOAC's perspective, what role does Mr. McCarthy see it having as that programme increases to try to ensure there is greater clarity about what approved housing bodies, AHB, and local authorities are doing and what commitments and targets are being met and delivered on?

Mr. Michael McCarthy

It is a very interesting topic with regard to housing itself. Our function is to liaise with stakeholders and produce our reports. We do that by conducting profiles. We use the information we get directly from local authorities via the performance indicators in terms of building our profiles of the local authorities. We also liaise with the Local Government Management Agency. We use statistics it would give us in order to inform our own reports. There are quite a lot of housing indicators in this area so they are probably not already covered by the Department in some of its reports. It depends very much on the prism from which one would view that. I think the figures on the approved housing bodies are gathered directly by the Department. We take the information the Department gave us, evaluate the information and produce our own reports. We are very much dependent on multi-stakeholders in terms of pulling together our own data, if that makes sense.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

Is the data NOAC is working on provided by the Departments?

Mr. Michael McCarthy

No, it is the local authorities. We get the data from the 31 local authorities. We also routinely get data from the LGMA and other stakeholders in terms of building our own. The local authorities would be the chief reference point for us in terms of building our data.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

Has there been any scrutiny of the back and forth between the Departments and the local authorities? I know from being a local authority member that sometimes the local authority will say it is with the Department and the Department will say it is with the local authority.

There can be time delays and cost increases as a result of that interaction. It may be no one's fault but it is a systemic element that seems to be adding to the delays in housing. Is that something NOAC has looked at or hopes to expand on as the public housing programme expands?

Mr. Michael McCarthy

There is a fundamental connection. The Deputy is right. I have had the experience where the local authorities say it is with the Department. Deputies could submit a parliamentary question and discover it is not with the Department, which is waiting for another chain of communication from the local authority. There is a determined effort on our part to get objective analysis of information we get from those stakeholders, whether the 31 local authorities or the Department. The ultimate accountability around that are the elections to this House and to local authorities in terms of bringing in that element of wider transparency and accountability. Then it is a matter of the direction of travel in the relationships and information-sharing between the stakeholders. That is the perspective we take. We have to verify and validate information and have a number of sources to go to for that. We do not have jurisdiction over the dynamic between the Department and local authority.

One of our focuses is outreach to elected members through representative bodies like the AILG. We build better relationships with them and use the experience they have and give us to inform our practice when dealing with our line Department or other Departments. It is a work in progress in terms of building those networks and relationships to allow us to do the best job we can. The view of the elected member is important to us, which is why we have made a determined effort to develop that relationship and get those insights. We have good insights from management and chief executives. We do regular profile and validation visits with them but the conversation on the inside that we would share with elected members is important.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

As an Oireachtas committee, we constantly try to engage with members through the local authority members associations, AILG and LAMA, and with the CCMA. It is obvious that the resources available to the CCMA are far greater than those available to the secretariats of the representative bodies of councillors. As Mr. McCarthy said, we are increasingly dealing with those bodies to input into national policy. We need more resources for AILG and LAMA to allow them express the views of their members across the country.

Mr. Michael McCarthy

We are meeting both of those representative bodies in March. At a good practice seminar in Kilkenny at the end of last year, the AILG was present. I know from experience in a previous life that the work the AILG and LAMA do has been hugely important. There is a base of 939 elected members, though I know not all will be active in AILG. It provides an important service and, in a pre-digitisation and pre-Google era, it was important to get those publications from the AILG outlining issues of national importance, their relevance to local areas and issues other local authorities experienced. That broadened my horizon at that point in my political career. We are meeting those bodies in March, adding to that theme of developing the relationship with them and taking their views on board in terms of how we approach our work streams.

Senator Victor Boyhan

I welcome Mr. McCarthy and the team from NOAC and congratulate them on the quality of the material they presented to the committee and on their impressive website. Earlier today, the committee had a private meeting and had Wexford, Leitrim and Galway county councillors quoting reports as part of the correspondence and they are very impressive. With such quality, are we getting enough circulation about it and enough people tapping into and reading it? There are a lot of data, information and resources gone into that.

It was interesting to hear the question Deputy McAuliffe touched on about data. One always has to validate data. That is an important point NOAC needs to make as an independent oversight body. It gets all sorts of data. I asked the same question of chief executives of some local authorities recently and the director of services in one of the same authorities, and I got two different responses. We always have the fall-back of parliamentary questions, or Commencement matters in the Seanad, and it is about that consistency or inconsistency.

I will take up two or three points. First, Mr. McCarthy mentioned in his opening statement that a Minister can request his organisation to carry out a report. Has a Minister in the past two or three years asked it to commission any report? If so, what was the response to the report?

Mr. Michael McCarthy

The short answer is "No". We approved a communications strategy just before Christmas at our board meeting in December. Part of that shines a light on our stakeholder involvement. We have been determined, despite Covid, and we met three senior Ministers on online platforms during Covid. There were a couple of reasons for that. Number one was to increase awareness of NOAC and highlight that point about the provision in the Act whereby a Minister - not the Minister but a Minister - can refer a matter to us. That is a learning experience for many Ministers. I expect that to be the case in future but it has not happened to date and certainly did not happen in the past two or three years.

Senator Victor Boyhan

That is interesting and a reminder to us as parliamentary representatives and Oireachtas Members that we could, if we had a concern, write to an appropriate Minister and ask him if he would consider that prerogative. I accept it is ultimately a matter for the Minister. We could tell more people about that option, particularly in the parliamentary community. We have had some scary concerns in relation to local government in the past 12 months and this may be an option. I thank Mr. McCarthy for that response.

Mr. McCarthy went on to say NOAC has no powers. This is clearly an issue but it has not stopped it from doing good work. Would Mr. McCarthy like to see NOAC gain additional powers through statutory processes? Does he think that would be helpful? If so, in what area would he like to see powers, whether compellability, sanction or whatever?

Mr. Michael McCarthy

I thank the Senator for his generous words about those reports. We circulate reports to all our stakeholders, among which are Departments. On powers, we have functions under the Act and are happy with that. There has not been an occasion yet where we have decided to knock on the door of the Minister, Government or Oireachtas to ask for more powers. We do not have the ability to apply sanctions or penalties. I do not necessarily think we want it. We are relatively happy with the parameters we operate within. Over the next while, there may well be an issue of concern to a Minister in a Department with a local government aspect to it that he or she refers to NOAC. We will be happy to engage with any Minister or Department on that basis.

Senator Victor Boyhan

Mr. McCarthy is saying NOAC is not looking for any sanction or additional powers.

Mr. Michael McCarthy

We are not. We have not had the debate at board level about looking for extra legislative remit. That is not to say there are not ongoing discussions with Ministers or stakeholders but I do not envisage us arriving at the point where we look for extended functions or powers.

Senator Victor Boyhan

That is grand. Concerning NOAC's annual performance indicator report, are there any issues the witnesses want to raise or alarm bells ringing which would they like to bring to the committee’s attention?

Mr. Michael McCarthy

We have 41 performance indicators and in recent times have added the area of climate to that. It is an important topic which rightly dominates discourse around national governments and is now a significant issue for local authorities. The performance indicators touch on a multitude of issues from waste collection to libraries to roads to transport. There is an array of services reflected in the performance indicators. From our perspective, there is excitement around the fact we are looking at local government in the context of climate and introducing initiatives such as the local climate offices established by local authorities. There is a fuller national concentration on issues like that, which is broadening the ambit at local authority level. That is not to say an issue will not present itself that we cannot predict now but would be happy to take on in the future.

Senator Victor Boyhan

I suggest that NOAC would be familiar with pre-legislative scrutiny and we have a red, amber and green light mechanism. I suggest that in future reports, NOAC might consider an alarm system for indicators that are way above norms or for unusual sets of circumstances. NOAC might also consider our red, amber and green light system. It is a traffic light warning system and it is a good system that works for many indicators and reports. I am not asking Mr. McCarthy to respond to that; other than asking that NOAC might consider it.

Mr. Michael McCarthy

Yes. Of course. I thank the Senator

Senator Victor Boyhan

The next thing I want to talk about is the importance of timely reports. It is important that reports come in a timely manner. Mr. McCarthy will be familiar with how local government chief executives move on after seven to ten-year cycles. It is difficult to deal with reports when a lot of the relevant people are gone. On NOAC’s report, it is important that we have timely reports. That is just a comment and not a question.

NOAC will be familiar with the local government auditing system and Niamh Larkin, who is director of that in the Custom House, does an excellent job. The biggest issue, which Deputy McAuliffe touched on, is how NOAC’s work interacts with the elected members of the 31 local authorities. We know we have internal audit committees but some councillors struggle to understand, through no fault of their own, and to get a detailed grasp on the fine grain of finance and law and that is an issue. As they are not lawyers, accountants or taxation consultants, it is important that we work closely with the AILG and LAMA in upskilling, training and assisting our elected members in respect of finance and general corporate governance issues.

I have had numerous complaints in the past 12 months about how some local authorities have given five or ten minutes of discussion to their statutory audit committee reports. That is 14 members in a council having ten to 15 minutes of discussion on audits and anyone who sticks his or her head above the parapet and challenges a chief executive in a local authority about finance is suddenly considered a troublemaker, difficult person or incorrigible little upstart. That is the language that is sometimes used about people. My colleague is laughing and we were on the same council so maybe that is a mutual opinion. It is concerning, disheartening and disappointing. I would be interested to hear what Mr. McCarthy thinks about it but I am of the view that there should be a statutory meeting set aside for everyone in the local authorities annually that is solely and exclusively to discuss their audit reports. Members are being told there is no time to deal with the audit reports and that is not good enough. These are public funds and finance. It is taxpayers' money and accountability is way down the Richter scale.

I acknowledge NOAC is not directly involved in this but it has engagement with the local government auditing service. Like with NOAC's report, I mention Wexford County Council’s situation in December 2022. I have already been in touch with the elected members in Wexford on this report and I would like to think that somehow, NOAC would get assurances that these reports were tabled and that opportunity was given for some discussion. That is important because our elected members are the eyes and ears of the public. They are advocates for the public, for good corporate governance and for how their taxpayers money is being spent locally.

I genuinely acknowledge the important work Mr. McCarthy and his team do. It is a tool, it provides data and it will assist people to scrutinise and understand the process. That is why I am glad Mr. McCarthy is here talking about his work. There is a case to be made to develop and empower more our local authority members to scrutinise any issues around governance locally and in local government auditing services. Can Mr. McCarthy share with us his interplay and engagement with the local government auditing services, both centrally in the departmental unit Niamh Larkin heads and in terms of the chief executives and elected members of local authorities? I will leave Mr. McCarthy with that question.

I thank NOAC for coming but the important point is that these are tools and aids. These are data and evidence and we have to use all this information to improve how we progress and draw light and accountability into the affairs of local government.

Mr. Michael McCarthy

The Senator has made a number of points and I will recap on some of them. On stakeholder engagement, as the Senator knows we were here about three years ago and we had no contact with the elected members at that point, except through this forum, by which people like the Senator were a strong conduit between local government members and the Upper House. Since then we have made a determined effort to add to our stakeholder lists, including both LAMA and the AILG, with the AILG attending our recent good practice seminar in Kilkenny. We value the involvement between the associations and NOAC because it shines a light on the other thoughts on and insights into the delivery of public services around local authorities. We also met the chairs of the audit committees in August last year, which was a first for us but that was an important exercise because we were able to compare notes in how we view the audit aspect of local government.

The point the Senator made on late reports is salient in terms of the current performance indicator report. Lots of the local authorities comply with the cut-off date but then it was necessary to extend it because some local authorities needed to be facilitated, in that the information they were sending us had to be verified. We may go back with a query, for example. There might be other issues with the timing by which some local authorities would deal with their financial reports and that would push them out to the end of the year, which has a knock-on effect. That is something we are mindful of and we continue to work with the local authorities to ensure the timely publication of our reports and to help infuse that debate around local government. It is another resource and another layer of accountability in how that business is transacted.

I thank the Senator for his long-standing support of the local government sector and for his acknowledgement of the work we do on the board. We value that.

Chairman

I will take the next slot as it is a Green Party one and I will continue on what Senator Boyhan was saying. The work NOAC does is incredibly important. I remember as a councillor that when I got the NOAC reports I would go to see how my local authority was comparing with the others. When you are a county councillor you know the way your council operates. I did not know how Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, next door to me, operated or the way Fingal County Council, up the road, operated. I was familiar with how my council worked and I took that as the way things were done everywhere. When you are provided with that kind of independent oversight, to a certain extent, of those indicators, it helps you to see if your council is an outlier or if it is in the middle of the pack and it helps you to understand it so it is helpful in that regard.

I have read that local government in Ireland is quite weak compared with many other local government systems in European and international comparisons. I have also read that funding for local government in Ireland is quite low when compared with international examples. I know this is trying to compare apples with oranges because there are different income streams, local taxation measures and all those kind of things. Could Mr. McCarthy recommend a good comparator between Irish local government and local government in other similar-type democracies or jurisdictions?

Mr. Michael McCarthy

That is an interesting question. I remember when the debate on the abolition of the dual mandate took place back around 2002 or 2003, there were lots of pros and cons and there was a great expectancy at local government level that this would change the dynamic of the local authorities. For example, in Cork at that stage we generally met on Mondays, which was to facilitate Oireachtas Members to travel to Dublin during the week. We were told at the time that if the dual mandate was abolished we could meet on a Wednesday afternoon or a Thursday but they still meet on a Monday.

That was one of the few occasions when the comparison with international best practice was made. I remember at the time that the local government system in France was such in its functions, powers and full-time positions that it was an equally appealing career move to someone who wanted to be a practising politician as national politics was. The general trend in Ireland is that someone would begin his or her career in a local authority, then work his or her way into the Oireachtas and with a bit of luck, he or she might become a Chair of a committee, a Minister or a Minister of State. In France, however, the division was such that local government was so empowered that one was happy to fulfil his or her political ambition in that.

We have not looked at any other jurisdiction but I know from various workstreams we have been involved in that the Institute of Public Administration, IPA, for example, has done a lot of good work on the Irish local government system.

I would be very surprised if they had not looked at other experiences. Ultimately, it is a matter of policy. If the Government of the day has been given a mandate following a campaign and has a particular view around local government that would automatically recalibrate the stakeholders within that. However, in the short term, I do not see that to be the case and we do not make that comparison with the international experience.

Chairman

Mr. McCarthy's comments about the career progression from county councillor to Deputy or Senator are interesting. To me, they are very different jobs although people often cannot take themselves out of local issues. We still have national politicians getting very much involved in local government issues and we have local government politicians getting involved in national politics. We need better separation in that. My own council meets on a Monday as well because of that dual mandate. You learn something every day.

In 2014 when the town councils were abolished and were amalgamated into county councils I remember thinking that the workload as a town councillor compared with the workload as a county councillor seemed to really ramp up with the amount that had to be dealt with. I often hear from councillors that the workload has increased considerably in the last couple of years. Has Mr. McCarthy engaged with the members on that as well? Is that still the case? When someone begins a new job it can initially be overwhelming and then one finds one's balance. Is it still the case that the workload has massively increased?

Mr. Michael McCarthy

We have not as yet directly engaged on that particular topic but it is something of which I am very mindful. Even the role of the former member of the UDC or the town commission or the town council was quite voluminous. From a public perspective, the constituents do not really make the distinction. That might suit a particular constituent not to make the distinction because by the nature of local government elected members are going to be around the community a lot more often. They will not be in Dublin for two or three days a week. There is an important debate to be had about the level at which people are finding out how busy the local government scene is. I have not seen any analysis but I know that since the last local government elections there have been quite a few resignations because it is very difficult for someone to juggle a full-time job with the role as an elected member. We do not have a role in that ourselves but it is something that we will be talking to the Association of Irish Local Government, AILG and the Local Authorities Members Association, LAMA, about in March, at least around the training and resources for elected members. It will give us an insight into what the representative bodies think is needed to support the role of the elected member. The executive will be our full-time executive but there is an important debate to be had about the other side of that line, that is, those with a reserve function, the elected members. We do not have a direct role in that but we will be having very important discussions with the councillors' associations around these issues.

Chairman

By the time the next local elections come around in May 2024 the Local Government Reform Act 2014 will be ten years old. Will the trends in the turnover or the workload of county councillors be looked at? I remember before the Moorhead report a questionnaire about workload was sent around to councillors. Is there analysis on that trend? If the workload is so overwhelming and people have to have another full-time job as well, it creates a lot of difficulty. We might not be getting the best efficiencies at local level if that is the case.

Mr. Michael McCarthy

I think it does but ultimately it is a matter for Government, the Minister and the Department. I know the Moorhead report looked a number of different issues. Instinctively, I think the issue will be revisited. One will often find a higher concentration on that when there is a high profile resignation or when local elections are in the offing. Suddenly, there is a focus on that. Until that point in time there may not be a focus on that but ultimately that would be a policy matter for the Minister and the Government.

Chairman

I have a similar question for the council executive as well. When many of the town councils were done away with, places that had autonomy, their own budgets and oversight on how they were going to develop within their towns had those things stripped away. That was certainly the sense I got regarding staff morale as well. Is there ongoing work into looking at the workload of the executive? I often feel when something needs to be done it is passed to the county council and it is put on some engineer's desk or some director of services who already has a full desk in front of them. Is this being looked at?

Mr. Michael McCarthy

The short answer is that I do not know but I suspect that the County and City Management Association, CCMA, would have very strong views on that. When the town councils were abolished there was a migration towards the municipal districts which became larger and had more members on them. There was an attempt to stymie that before it happened. It is like comparing apples and oranges to compare one local authority with another but I think there might be significant issues with staff retention or filling positions that become vacant. The CCMA would have more insight on that than the National Oversight and Audit Committee, NOAC, would.

Chairman

Regarding the functions that could be carried out by a municipal district and those that could be carried out by the full plenary council I remember there was a schedule of three, one that could only be done by the plenary, one by the municipal and one in the middle that they could decide either way. I remember at the time that it was not really briefed out to members and it was probably about two or three years into it before people started to realise that things could be done at municipal district level, such as passing a local area plan. I felt that members were not properly informed of that. One had to go digging in the Local Government Reform Act 2014 to find out about it. Does briefing on that part of the Act happen with an incoming council now? Does that ever come up, that is, that people are not aware of what they can do in different districts or-----

Mr. Michael McCarthy

There was a recent seminar in the Department on corporate plans between NOAC and different stakeholders. We can analyse and objectively assess data that we receive from those stakeholders but one can very quickly veer into policy territory where we do not have the prescribed legislative mandate. That is not to say we would not develop a view on it over time with the stakeholders if there is a pressing issue. If a Minister in any of the Departments on the local government linkage within that Department decides that an issue is topical or serious or needs extra consideration they can refer to us. There are avenues by which we could deal with issues like that but that would be the call of the Minister of the day in that Department if they felt it necessary.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I thank NOAC for appearing here today. I want to ask a couple of questions about the national local authority performance index indicator report which is very good and full of very useful information particularly in relation to the housing disaster that we are in at the moment. Appendix 2 of the report is about housing delivery numbers. It is very useful because it shows the net additional number of local authority homes provided by each local authority in a year. That is very important for accountability because all sorts of numbers and figures are bandied around at different times of the year by different people. This shows what is actually happening. For example, Dún Laoighre-Rathdown shows that in 2021 there was a net gain of 74 local authority dwellings. Fingal County Council had a net gain of 32 local authority dwellings. South Dublin County Council had a net gain of one local authority dwelling in the middle of an absolute housing disaster that we have. Could Mr. McCarthy clarify where the data for this is obtained? Building on the point that Senator Boyhan was making, could we get, given how critical housing delivery is, a preliminary report this year, before the full report is available? I appreciate that across all these headings there is a lot of work to go through but could we get a preliminary report on some of the key housing data in the next few months? I have a second question after that.

Mr. Michael McCarthy

I thank the Deputy for his thoughtful questions. In relation to the information itself, we do profile visits. As chair, I do scrutiny visits with the local authorities. We have pretty much most of them completed at this point. The process involves us meeting with the local authority and the local authority then coming to meet with the full board. We build the profile based on the information they give us. That is where we primarily get our information and our statistics.

I accept the Deputy's broader point on statistics and data information. Sometimes the latter can be quite complex and confusing. It is important to see, in tabulated form, information that is easy to interpret around a net gain of 74 or 55. We pull that information by virtue of the visits and interaction we have with local authorities.

In the context of preliminary reporting, it depends on a number of factors. It depends on how many local authorities have sent information to us. Again, there might be a cycle in terms of their workload whereby they are perhaps operating in the context of a different timeframe. I am not saying "No"; I am favourably disposed to the idea. In terms of the practicalities, however, we need to consider what we would get and whether it would be lopsided if we did not have complete information or figures from all of the local authorities. The short answer is that we are open to that if it is workable from the point of view of meeting deadlines and getting information from different local authorities.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I thank Mr. McCarthy for his response. I appreciate it. The vacancy data in the report is very important. It shows that in 2021 the vacancy rate in local authority owned dwellings in Cavan was 4.6%. Cork city had a rate of almost 4.4%. The rate for Galway county was over 7%, it was more than 4% for Limerick city and county and it was in excess of 7% for Longford county. In contrast, the rate for South Dublin County Council was less than 1%. Those figures show the natural vacancy levels that could be achieved by local authorities. This is in the middle of a housing disaster, and these are important statistics that NOAC produces. They also show most of the county councils with high vacancy levels, unsurprisingly, have very high turnaround times. Cavan county takes 55 weeks to re-let an empty social local authority owned dwelling. Cork city takes 75 weeks, Cork county takes 48 weeks, Galway county takes 65 weeks, Limerick city and county takes 56 weeks and Longford county takes 67 weeks. It takes almost more than a year to re-let homes during a housing disaster. That data is important.

The concern I have is that the NOAC reports have highlighted this issue for a number of years. We have seen some improvements in certain areas, but, in terms of vacancy rates, we are not seeing the kind of improvements we need from outlier local authorities, particularly in view of our housing disaster. Is there any mechanism for NOAC to flag poor performance beyond publishing this information?

Senator Boyhan suggested a system of red, amber and green. He said would not ask Mr. McCarthy for his view on that system. It is a good idea. Can Mr. McCarthy give us his view on it? If we were able to flag some local authorities as outliers in terms of being classed as red, it would create awareness. Unfortunately, making the data available alone has not produced the kind of changes we would like to see. I am trying to explore what else can be done to try to change things.

Mr. McCarthy said if the Minister asked him to look at something else in detail he can do that. Failing a Minister asking him to do something, is there anything else that can be done?

Mr. Michael McCarthy

The Deputy made a number of points. On the data in the performance indicators report and the table of rankings, the rationale is that it is difficult to compare some local authorities with others. Obviously, we will get different results in Leitrim or Roscommon compared with those in Dublin, Dún Laoghaire or south Dublin. There are different considerations around demography, geography and topographic issues. There is no doubt that some local authorities are comparable. We engage directly with chief executives and identify counties that, insofar as is possible, are most closely aligned. The Deputy mentioned Cavan. There is strong competition between Cavan and Monaghan to see which is the best at the different things they do. We tend to take a good result and showcase it at our good practice seminar every year. We want to showcase such behaviour. Other local authorities which may not perform as well in a particular sector category can take that learning from the seminar.

The system for performance indicator report data provided by local authorities opens in April each year. There is a timing element around how we can take that information in its fullest form and compile our own reports. That touches on the point about the preliminary report. If it is doable, it is something we are open to doing. There may be an issue around timing, however.

On the performance indicator report, we could ask what is valuable about it. There is a value for NOAC, but, equally, there is also a value for local authorities because it gives them the opportunity to track their performance over time and compare their performance in that area with other authorities of a similar size. There is a general importance from our point of view in terms of the statutory aspect, but also being good practice for local authorities and a good process for them to be involved with by which they can benchmark their performance in those areas with other comparably sized local authorities.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I thank Mr. McCarthy. I am all for the approach of encouraging local authorities and there is a lot to be said for the good practice seminar. We are in a housing disaster at the moment, so there is no excuse for Cavan, for example, having a vacancy rate of almost 5% when a neighbouring county, Monaghan, has a rate of less than 1%. I am quite certain that anything Monaghan can do Cavan would be able to do.

There are no excuses. The data has been available for a number of years, and we are seeing the progress the data being publicly available should create around vacancy levels in particular. There needs to be a thorough explanation. If there is a particular barrier for outliers with high levels of vacancy we need to discuss those barriers, whether they are about funding, staffing, a cultural lethargy or structural barriers which can be addressed. If so, let us address them and get houses back into use.

Is there anything else NOAC can do or is it down to the Minister, Department and political system? Is there anything else NOAC can do to drive change?

Mr. Michael McCarthy

The Deputy makes a great point. I accept the entirety of what he said. We will meet representatives from the local authority in Cavan later in the year, probably in quarter 2, and I will broach this issue with them. In some of the scrutiny visits we have done, I have found that some local authorities do an impressive turnaround of vacant housing stock while others do not.

From the perspective of NOAC and the good practice seminar, I would like to see a more universal standard apply if something is good practice. Ultimately, if it is a policy decision, we are precluded from doing that. If we are able to flag that some local authorities are doing things really well, however, we want to interrogate the reasons why that is the case. It may be that they have different methods of private contractors going in to bring the house up to a level whereby it is possible to let it again. Other local authorities might be struggling in terms of funding and are doing such work themselves. There could be other issues.

I would like good practice to be extrapolated across the 31 local authorities because some are very good and others are not so good.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

If NOAC comes across reasons why some local authorities are not performing so well in certain areas, which may be for structural reasons or whatever, can anything be done about that beyond talking to the local authority? Can the issue be flagged if spotted? In terms of the overview NOAC has, does not go anywhere else? What is it able to do?

Mr. Michael McCarthy

We can showcase it at the good practice seminar. There was a good example in Cork city when representatives spoke to us that one of the seminars. We share that information with our stakeholders. We gather information and depend on local authorities and the local government audit service. Information sharing at that level is important in terms of flagging a particular issue.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I thank Mr McCarthy.

Deputy Thomas Gould

I thank the witnesses for coming in. The work they do is important in terms of scrutiny and putting together these reports. Mr. McCarthy made the point about trying to encourage best practice and, where there is good practice getting, 31 local authorities to come on board.

I certainly welcome that. Last Friday, I posted on Facebook about people who have contacted me about dampness, leaks and mould in their homes. I got more than 130 responses and the messages are still coming in. When I was a councillor on Cork City Council, I got the monthly and yearly reports that the chief executive would put out. These related to how many calls came in about housing maintenance, how many of them were resolved and how many of them were urgent. However, they do not give information on whether they have been completed. I remember from being on Cork City Council that we would see thousands of housing maintenance requests being submitted. I know for a fact from talking to people in my constituency that some of those are not done. This is because the council may not have the staff because of the cuts after the financial crash and because many of the staffing numbers in housing maintenance were never replaced. Also, they do not have the finances to contract out the work. There are therefore people living in substandard accommodation that would not be accepted in the private sector. Yet, some local authorities are not doing the repairs on local authority homes, as they should. One of my questions relates to what we can do to ensure that local authorities are doing the work that they are supposed to do.

Mr. Michael McCarthy

That is a great point. I think the Deputy broached this point the last time we were before the joint Oireachtas committee. At a national level, one of the performance indicator headings is around housing maintenance costs. Our role in that is to look at the cost per unit and to compare that with different local authorities. I said to Deputy Cian O’Callaghan that the structure or the format by which local authorities deal with maintenance or with reallocating housing, and taking out the necessary repairs, may differ from local authority to local authority. From our perspective, performance indicator H4 relates, which is the housing maintenance cost, varies. For example, in Cork city it is €1,385 per housing unit while in Carlow it is €510. That will vary. Obviously, as you go into the more urbanised centres it gets more expensive. There is an issue with the increased cost of building materials, etc. Building inflation has been crazy for the last couple of years anyway and that has a direct impact on it. Ultimately, however, we do not have a direct role in how the local authority should respond to that. We establish what they are doing well and what they are not doing well, and we showcase that in our reports.

Deputy Thomas Gould

I hear what Mr. McCarthy is saying, which is that NOAC is looking at it from a financial point of view.

Mr. Michael McCarthy

Yes.

Deputy Thomas Gould

I want to look at how many complaints came in and how many were completed and, if they were not completed, when will they be completed. I would ask NOAC to look at adding to the report. If people are contacting the local authority with complaints, whether these are about mould, leaks, having no heating or whatever, just by looking at the money we are not getting a true reflection on completion. I would encourage NOAC to look at that with local authorities. I was in a house the other day and the person has been living in their house for 37 years. It is a beautiful local authority house. The council insulated the roofs and put in the vents. For five years they have had a leak in the roof and the bedrooms are covered in mould. This is a lovely, well-kept house. They wash it, they clean it and they paint it. Yet, this has been happening for five years. How can a local authority be allowed to have a housing maintenance issue roll on for five years? I would imagine that there are more cases.

Following on from that is in relation to what Mr. McCarthy touched on earlier about vacancy. In my constituency houses have been vacant for years. Unfortunately, Cork City Council performed very badly and it was at 75 weeks. I spoke to officials recently who said they have gotten that figure down to the low 60s and they are going to work on it, which is something I welcome. Yet, some local authorities, and Mr. McCarthy touched on this, are doing excellent work but others are not. What are we doing with regard to local authorities?

One of the issues I concede regarding Cork City Council is that it has to come up to the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage in Dublin, give a list of the vacant properties and see what funding it gets. There is huge bureaucracy and red tape that should be removed. Is there any way that NOAC could have a list of the vacant properties and especially long-term vacant properties? Every local authority should be able to outline how many properties have been vacant for under a year, how many have been vacant for two years and how many properties have been vacant for more than three years. Is that something that NOAC could look at as well?

Mr. Michael McCarthy

The answer is “No”, despite the case the Deputy made, which is a very good one and on which I agree with him. Particularly for practitioners on the ground, like the Deputy, who are dealing with that, it can be quite frustrating. It can be particularly frustrating, especially for the conduit between the local authority and the constituent who has to endure those conditions. Yet, ultimately, it is not an issue for us. Our issue is the financial performance of the local authority. That is why in that indicator, we break it down to cost per unit.

I believe the Department is currently undertaking a conditions survey on all its stock. I am not entirely sure of how advanced that is, but I can get information to the Deputy around that. That should provide us with an insight into the condition of the housing stock within the 31 local authorities. I am more than happy to give that update to the Deputy subsequent to the meeting.

Deputy Thomas Gould

I got information through a parliamentary question, and the Minister said this, is that they are now thinking of moving away from this. They are looking at a situation whereby they will not need to do the voids or to put money towards vacant houses because the local authorities will get to a stage of doing preventative maintenance. The housing stock will be so good that the big money that would be needed to get a vacant property out of vacancy will not be needed. To me, that is completely unrealistic of the Minister and of the Department. Somewhere like Cork has 11,000 council houses, which is one of the biggest figures in the State. If they do not have the money to carry out preventative maintenance or even necessary maintenance, then we will not get to that point.

I am now speaking to tenants. The information and the report that NOAC is putting together are very important, but I would like to see more. I would even like to see NOAC having extra powers. I would like to see NOAC in a position where it can sit down with local authorities. Mr. McCarthy mentioned the word "encourage" earlier. If you encourage someone to do something and they still will not do it, or if they still do not achieve the figures or results that they should achieve, then you need someone to come in and say, “Well you have to do it”, or, “We have to put in changes”. I would like to see NOAC develop more. It has the information. That is one aspect of trying to provide solutions; one needs the data. NOAC has the data and it can see where the problems are. I would like to see it go a step further.

We mentioned dereliction and part of the NOAC report relates to derelict sites. It reports the information that the local authorities give to it on dereliction. However, anyone on the ground knows that those figures are not true because local authorities are not listing every derelict site. They are not putting pressure on to collect the derelict sites levy. I put it to Mr. McCarthy that we know that local authorities are not recording all the derelict sites, but they are producing a report. That report is then used by people who think that the information is correct, but it is not. What can we do to deal with that and to get local authorities to make sure that every site is on the register?

Mr. Michael McCarthy

Deputy Gould raised a number of issues there. I cannot comment directly on the Minister’s contribution on the housing stock, suffice to say that the Deputy is right to say that we use the word “encourage”. When we identify a good practice in a local authority, or indeed, a practice that is not so good, we showcase the good practice at our annual good practice seminar. That is where the element of the carrot approach is. We let other local authorities feed into that process and to bring those learnings and experiences with them in order to improve their own level of service in that particular sector.

Beyond that, we do not have a PI on derelict sites. We will very quickly stray into policy territory. We do not have a role in policy. Our statutory remit is very clear. Our role is to provide a level of oversight, scrutiny and, in particular, financial scrutiny. The Deputy quite rightly brought the emotion into the issue of someone who was waiting for repairs to a local authority house.

I understand that completely but our perspective is to look at the cost per unit. That is the difference between our statutory remit and the policy decisions that would be taken around that.

Deputy Thomas Gould

I have been critical of Cork City Council here but one thing I can be very positive about is what it has done in the area of affordable and cost-rental accommodation. It is really leading the way in that regard. We have met representatives of a number of local authorities at this committee and some have not even started on that. Cork City Council is a frontrunner in terms of affordable and cost-rental accommodation but how do we get the other local authorities up to speed on that? It is all about delivery.

The last point I will make is that I am hugely concerned about the homeless figures. As the NOAC report indicates, they are on the increase. Is there any further contribution the local authorities could make to help to tackle that issue?

Mr. Michael McCarthy

I thank the Deputy who has made some very good points. I hope this does not sound like I am avoiding the question but a really important part of the NOAC calendar is the good practice seminar. We use that to encourage wider best practice. On the other issues, we collect data, validate it, publish our own reports and send them to key stakeholders including Government Ministers. We also publish the reports on our website. The aim is to fill in those cracks where they exist, to provide information to enable the making of objective calls on what some local authorities are doing well and what others are not doing well and sharing that. Beyond that, it is an issue of policy that would be entirely up to the Oireachtas or the Government and the relevant Minister.

Chairman

Deputy Boyd Barrett is next.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

I thank the Chairman. I am not a member of this committee so I appreciate being allowed to participate.

Chairman

Deputy Boyd Barrett is very welcome.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

Thank you. I am an honorary member. I thank the representatives of NOAC for their contribution and for all of their fantastic gathering of information. It is really a brilliant resource, I have to say. I will preface my questions by saying that I am aware that the commission does a lot of hard work in gathering data and I also know that a lot of ordinary workers in our local authorities are pinned to the collar trying to deal with the volume of work they have. In many cases, they are absolutely overrun, particularly in the area of housing. If any of my questions seem to be a criticism of the performance that NOAC has analysed in its report, they are not a criticism of the staff. What the NOAC reports do is raise questions about areas where positive performance is happening and where it is not and point to issues that need to be addressed. Obviously, the big issue is the performance on housing.

One of NOAC's big fans, apart from members of this committee, is Mr. Mel Reynolds, the housing commentator who uses its figures to put together an analysis of social housing output every year. He says that if one wants the facts, one should to go NOAC and its figures, where one will get the real facts. It really is a great resource. I have not read all of the latest indicator report but I have read quite a bit of it. One of the things Mr. Reynolds did, which is very useful, was to take the total local authority housing stock, about which NOAC is very concerned in its reports, and look at our progress in terms of increasing or not increasing that stock. If I understand the report correctly, NOAC takes into account demolitions, sales and all the rest of it, which cuts through some of the stuff around "we did this and we did that" and provides the net result, which is brilliant. One of the things that Mel Reynolds does is compare that with previous years. I have not seen the index but it is really fascinating when that is done. Mr. Reynolds took the NOAC report from 2017, for example, on housing stock and compared it with the 2021 report and his findings were really stark. NOAC figures show that the Dublin city housing stock was 268 less than it was five years previously, which would shock most people. That finding is based on figures provided in NOAC indicator reports. Does NOAC itself do similar over-time comparisons to assess how we are doing, not just from the beginning to the end of one year but over a longer period? I was quite shocked by the data. Cork County Council's stock was minus 302 when demolitions and sales were taken into account. Again, that is based on NOAC figures. The stock in my own area of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown was plus 35 over five years, which is really quite extraordinary. Fingal County Council was a bit better, with stock up by 780. These are not good figures when one thinks about the scale of the crisis and when one hears the figures that are being bandied about regarding increased social housing output. To see minus figures over a five year period is really quite shocking. Does NOAC do that kind of comparison? Mr. Mel Reynolds has done it using NOAC data. He could only do it with data provided by NOAC but it is a very interesting exercise.

The NOAC reports differentiate between additional stock in local authorities and approved housing bodies, AHBs, but the main focus is on local authorities. Would NOAC remark upon the fact that a very high proportion of the new social housing is being delivered by AHBs? In many cases it is quite skewed and while the situation is different in different areas, local authority output is very low. The figures for the four Dublin local authorities have been shockingly bad in the last year or two, with new builds at zero for the first two quarters of last year for all four councils. The figures improve slightly when one looks at AHBs, particularly in purchases. Is that something that NOAC remarks upon? Mr. McCarthy has already said that NOAC cannot stray into areas of policy and I get that but to what extent does it feel the need to highlight that?

Another issue in which I am interested is quite remarkable. I am not looking for reasons to criticise anybody but I noted a stark contrast in the data provided. NOAC provides a table, H6, on long-term homeless adults and notes a very alarming rise in the number of people in emergency accommodation and so on. The table illustrates the number of adults in emergency accommodation that are long-term homeless as a percentage of the total number of homeless adults in emergency accommodation at the end of 2021. In Dublin city, 56% of the people in emergency accommodation were long-term homeless but in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, Fingal and South Dublin County Council, the figure was 0%. Am I missing something there? Is there an explanation for that? Quite frankly, even based on the case work I am dealing with - and I am not looking for reasons to be critical - that is definitely not the case. Are they all being accounted for within the Dublin Region Homeless Executive, DRHE, which covers all four areas?

Mr. Michael McCarthy

Effectively Dublin City Council collects the information from the other three local authorities.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

Okay, so is the actual figure for all four local authorities 56%? I am trying to work that out.

Mr. Michael McCarthy

The one figure stands for the four. At the end of page 73 of the report, we point out that Dublin City Council manages homelessness responses on behalf of the Dublin authorities. Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, Fingal and South County Dublin councils are included under Dublin City Council. The Deputy is asking whether the figure is for four local authorities or just for Dublin city.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

Exactly. How is that broken down? Maybe we do not have the breakdown.

Mr. Michael McCarthy

I do not think we have a breakdown of the 56%. The figure of 56% applies to all four local authorities, as collected by Dublin City Council.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

That in itself is a very interesting and depressing figure, that more than half of the people in emergency accommodation are long-term homeless. Is that further broken down in terms of the length of time? Does NOAC have further information on the length of time that people are spending in homeless accommodation?

Mr. Michael McCarthy

No, we do not have a breakdown on the length of time.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

I do not know whether it is appropriate for us to suggest other stuff because NOAC is compiling so much information. However, the length of time people are in in terms of years – over years one, two, three, four and five - would be interesting, yet probably depressing, information. In addition, we should consider children. One of the worst aspects of all of this is children in emergency accommodation long term. I do not know whether it is possible to collate those slightly more broken-down figures.

In a similar vein, I do not know whether it appropriate to suggest or for NOAC to consider, or whether it has to be the Minister who says, things that might be additional areas of information that would be helpful, such as the housing allocations and, in particular, whether the allocations are one-, two- or three-bedroom. There is a big issue apparent in my area, and I think it is emerging in many places, around the allocations and where the new stuff that is being developed in many cases is one- and two-bedroom, particularly coming from Part V, whereas there is virtually no movement on the three- and four-bedroom lists. It is seen as an easier win, if you like, to get one- and two-bedroom properties. That is a lot of detail, but it would be very interesting to have.

The other one, which again I do not know if it is something NOAC discussed or thought about, is the reactivation or number of vacant properties now, which is becoming a big issue. I do not just mean local authority vacant houses but vacant houses in areas and the success of local authorities in reactivating them.

I am nearly out of time, so I had better be quick. I refer to the number of people removed from lists as a result of going over the thresholds.

Mr. Michael McCarthy

The income threshold.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

Yes, the income thresholds. To date, NOAC probably has not been gathering those figures. That would be an interesting thing to look at. It is now becoming apparent that people, even if they are over those social housing income thresholds, still have serious difficulties. That is why we have cost rental and affordable housing. Many of those people are now not eligible for things such as the housing assistance payment, HAP, and social housing. Trying to quantify that would be useful.

I have two last points. What is being done with zoned land available for residential housing that is owned by local authorities? That would be useful. There is a big issue in our area where there is land in the possession of the local authority, zoned for residential development and earmarked for local authority housing but even the servicing of the land is not being done. Is there progress being made on the servicing of land that could be used to deliver housing?

An issue that is emerging as well is the length of waiting time for medical and welfare assessments. This is not a criticism of the staff, as I suspect it is to do with understaffing. Many people now are trying to get assessed medically or on welfare or homeless grounds. The length of time people are waiting has gone from a few weeks perhaps two years ago to months and months now. There is a problem there. I do not know if the NOAC representatives came across that in their interaction with the local authorities or if it would be a useful thing to look at. Obviously, it is a big problem, especially if people are very sick, very disabled or whatever it might be, as in many cases they are. There could be children, health and welfare issues. That is a worrying thing we need to have figures on. I apologise for going on so long.

Mr. Michael McCarthy

There is a lot in that note. I will take some of those points back to the relevant working groups and provide updates to the committee. I am delighted to hear Deputy Boyd Barrett reference Mel Reynolds's exercise in comparing and contrasting reports from 2017 to present day. It is an interesting work practice and it is impressive to hear it. We have done that with some in particular sectors but not with all. That like-for-like comparison is food for thought for us. There might be a theme or topic that becomes prevalent all of a sudden. From our perspective in NOAC, we could do a mini best practice seminar to focus on particular areas. For example, if the topic were housing, we could bring the various local authorities that are doing good work in particular areas as platform speakers and all the local authorities that have a different approach who have some very good results. Then, we would invite the wider local authorities and showcase that good practice in that particular sense. That is the extent of our legislative remit, but it allows us to capture an issue that might just become a – topical is not the word – big issue that one could not be predicted at this point in the year.

On stock managed by local authorities. Regarding local government and the stock that is owned and managed by approved housing bodies, AHBs, and why it is excluded from local authorities, for the purposes of the performance indicator, PI, report, the NOAC social housing indicator only records housing stock that is owned, managed and maintained by local authorities. However, I take the Deputy’s point that many AHBs are now effectively taking ownership or developing social housing stock on behalf of the council. I can see the delineation becoming less between the local authority-owned stock. Our current PI is structured in a way that we just look at that, but I am open to collating that information or those data, even though there is no regulator for AHBs. However, on a philosophical level, I take the point that the delineation is becoming less clear.

On the process around how the performance indicators are added to the report, we review the indicators every year and determine whether they require any kind of element of refinement or clarification and introduce new indicators. Two years ago, we introduced climate change and economic development spend. It is of a particular time. It depends on the evolution of the issues affecting local government that we would calibrate our PIs to include, where necessary, collation of data on that particular heading. Again, we cannot predict it now, but in two years’ time there might be an issue that we just could not have thought of. We add to that.

The Deputy made a number of other points at a policy level and I will take those back to our working groups and provide a written update to the committee.

Deputy Francis Noel Duffy

I thank the NOAC representatives for coming in today and for their update. I have sat on the county council's order committee and I currently sit on the Oireachtas order committee. From seeing how these forums work, they are very important in the context of the democratic governance oversight that happens within them. From my experience of being on them, they are quite technical.

I have two questions based on Mr. McCarthy’s update. Some of the answers have been covered, but I will go at them again anyway. The first is on inspections. While our focus here in the midst of the housing crisis is to increase output, we need to ensure existing housing stock meets quality standards. We can all agree it is unacceptable that, in 2021, 90% of inspected dwellings by 23 local authorities were found to be non-compliant with standards regulations. It is clear we have a problem and a serious issue with housing quality standards.

I am not sure if this is within NOAC’s remit but has it looked into the feasibility of an independent inspection body like HIQA instead of the local authorities that, as has been said, are overstretched? From NOAC’s data, do the local authorities have sufficient resources and staffing to undertake those inspections?

Mr. Michael McCarthy

I thank the Deputy for his important questions. We look at rental inspections and the number of inspections by local authorities in 2021. It would not be a role for us to recommend the creation, effectively, of another kind of a State body. Suffice it to say, there will be different kinds of approaches in different local authorities. That is why I keep coming back to the good practice seminar where we flag that good practice. Local authority A or local authority B may be doing very well, but as one goes further into the 31 local authorities, they may not be doing as well. We intend to pull that experience and platform it at a good practice seminar. That is where we want effectively to encourage the other local authorities to take up that particular practice. Insofar as going beyond that, we quickly stray into policy territory, certainly in terms of recommending. However, if the Minister, in his or her wisdom, decided something is a particular issue and it is so important that he or she would like the Department to look at it and refer it to us, of course we would be willing to look at that issue.

In the absence of that direct request from the Minister, however, we would be straying into policy territory and we have to perform to our statutory remit.

Deputy Francis Noel Duffy

On that point, the audit committee sits in a local authority. Is that the mechanism from where NOAC takes the data is taken?

Mr. Michael McCarthy

We take it from the local authority itself.

Deputy Francis Noel Duffy

It is not from the audit committee of the local authority.

Mr. Michael McCarthy

No. It is not from the audit committee but from the local authority itself. Through performance indicators, we get information from the local authorities. Then we build a profile that leads ultimately to the good practice seminar. Each local authority has an audit committee and as part of our recent work programme, last August we had direct engagement for the first time, from a NOAC perspective, with the chairs of the 31 audit committees. It is part of our stakeholder engagement to broaden our own perspective on what the audit looks like from the audit committee of the local authority, sharing that information, and developing our own kind of network around the particular topic. The information itself comes directly from the local authority.

Deputy Francis Noel Duffy

If there is an issue, apart from having seminars how does NOAC drill it back into the authority that has the issue? I mentioned two instances earlier and while I will not mention them again, if a local authority has a major issue with, say, re-lets, has NOAC any responsibility to push back down on them or is it its own responsibility?

Mr. Michael McCarthy

We collect the data. Sometimes, once you get the information on the data or the sentence, you are scratching your head and thinking how is this the case but once you have a discussion with the local authority CEO and the management, you realise there is a reason in some cases-----

Deputy Francis Noel Duffy

Of course.

Mr. Michael McCarthy

-----and that might not be abundantly clear. I remember, for example, at one point there was a 50% increase in planning appeals to An Bord Pleanála and it sounded voluminous but there were two planning applications. When that headline sentence was broken down, you discovered there was a thinking behind it. In terms of housing stock and the level of which and the length of time houses are vacant, sometimes that can depend on the manner in which the local authority prepares that house for reallocation. It might use private contractors and it might have dedicated units within its own local authority and that might impinge on the dates. That is not a panacea to understanding why the lengths of time are what they are in some particular cases but it does give a thinking for the reasons or the drivers behind that particular piece of data.

Regarding our performance indicators and inspections, we had to refine the performance indicator inspections because some inspections failed on minor issues. Again, the headline figure presented as a fail, as if the house must be ready to collapse, but they were minor issues so we therefore had to refine our PI to reflect, within reason, the reasons for that kind of inspection failure report.

Deputy Francis Noel Duffy

Okay.

The next question is on re-letting and vacancy. In the context of homelessness, this takes an average of 34 weeks. Other than the costs Mr. McCarthy has identified, has it been identified why it is taking up to eight months on average to re-let homes? As an architect, I am in this space myself and I understand it takes time to turn things around but it does seem slow. If a local authority has being doing this since it has been in existence, you would think it would have some mechanism to actually do it. I think some local authorities are quicker than others and there may be reasons for that. I am curious if Mr. McCarthy has come across any mechanisms to speed it up.

Mr. Michael McCarthy

I remember one and I cannot remember the particular local authority but it had an impressive turnaround time compared to others. I think it was Waterford city. With others, I think it was just the system used to prepare the house for reallocation. They might have a number of contractors they would go to do these works and that would bring an element of immediate skill and expertise plus the materials to that particular site, as opposed to depending on their own outdoor staff or their internal staffing. That is one that jumps off the top of my head but I have been chair of NOAC for over four years and that has been a running issue. There have been improvements in some occasions but it is a running issue for us. It is definitely an issue we are keeping a watching brief on, to showcase the good practice around that to encourage other local authorities to do the good work that Waterford, for example, is doing, and to use our annual seminar to showcase that practice to bring about an improvement in the figures on the turnaround times for re-letting local authority homes.

Deputy Francis Noel Duffy

I have one last add-on to that. Is NOAC able to compare that with other jurisdictions such as the UK? Does the UK have a quick turnaround or are we average?

Mr. Michael McCarthy

The short answer is "No". Off the top of my head and I could be wrong, very few local authorities in the UK now handle their own stock. I think they are all delegated to approved housing bodies, AHBs. The short answer is that we have not compared our jurisdiction with others but we can do. There would be a multitude of reasons as well or at least other reasons to consider. In some local authorities there might be a headline figure of X number of weeks but then the house might be in such a state of disrepair that it is beyond the expertise or the skill set of the local authority to bring it into a reasonable standard to be re-let compared with how quickly a private contractor would do it, for example, given the level of works involved. There could be a lack of resources. Some of the local authorities in and around the urbanised areas are under pressure with staff retention and hiring staff to fill positions and that also would have an impact in fulfilling the mandate around that.

Deputy Francis Noel Duffy

Fair enough.

Chairman

I have three quick questions before we round up.

First, I was glad to hear Mr. McCarthy mention the climate aspect coming into it now as well because as we know, each local authority has to have a climate action plan and I would expect this is something we will see further reporting on and indications of who has got good plans and who has not. Similarly for energy efficiency, I remember energy usage and efficiency coming in at some stage but if I wanted to compare my county with other counties in respect of the percentage of street lighting that has been converted to light emitting diodes, LEDs, which is the biggest energy use, is that easily available or something that is measured?

Mr. Michael McCarthy

It is an indicator for us presently but we are having some difficulty in collecting that particular data. There are two local authorities in my mind which we visited that did use this. I remember it was quite novel in one particular case, in that the local authority went into particularly aged housing stock where the house had less insulation and devised an energy scheme. I think it put in air to water heating with the effect that all of those houses are now heated in a climate-friendly way but also there was an improvement in air quality in that particular part of the town and this was really interesting. All of a sudden people were not burning coal or solid fuels which is in itself was a very good thing, but the air quality improved and there also was an improvement for the pocket. There were now groups of residents in a particular estate who were not negotiating the increase in the price of a bag of coal or trying to afford to heat their homes on a fixed income. Another local authority did something similar, the name of which has temporarily escaped me. That is why we are excited in NOAC to have climate as a particular performance indicator.

On page 96 of the PI report, we have a breakdown on public lighting under performance indicator E6. There are three headings on the table, namely, total billable wattage of the public system; average billable wattage of the public lighting system; and percentage of the total system that LED lights represent. If we go back a number of years, we probably would not be doing this from the climate perspective so it is really exciting for us. The Government has really strong ambitious targets around renewable energy and there is a very good continuing political discussion nowadays about climate. It is certainly taking political precedence and priority compared to a number of years ago when there was very few voices in that space with the honourable exception of the current Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, and his political party. Therefore, it is very important to see that being adopted from our perspective at local authority level where we can measure the climate ambitions and see who is doing well in terms of their plan and who is not. It is certainly the direction of travel in that very important subject.

Chairman

Along the lines of that as well, we have this very high target of retrofitting of housing stock, both private and social, throughout the country. Is there a comparator there which we can look at to see how each local authority is doing in terms of either bringing stock up to the B2 standard or doing the warmer homes schemes?

As we know, a great deal of that is being paid out of carbon taxes as well as going back into retrofitting for those in energy poverty. Is there a comparator like that for local authorities?

Mr. Michael McCarthy

There is. We have done work but we are having difficulty in getting that information. It is an issue as the Chair has flagged. We will liaise with the committee on the progress we make in gathering that information.

Chairman

That is grand. I thank Mr. McCarthy. I do not have anyone online and I do not have anyone indicating. I thank the witnesses for the work they do. A lot of what we try to do in here is enacted and the interaction with the public takes place at local authority level; that is where the rubber hits the road. The staff across our local authorities do a tremendous amount of work. They are under a lot of scrutiny and there is always a spotlight on them. My experience from working with them is that they are all deeply committed to their work and do a fine job. The work done by NOAC to inform us that public money is being spent in the best possible way is very helpful for all of us. I thank Mr. McCarthy and his team for being with us today.

The joint committee adjourned at 4.40 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Tuesday, 24 January 2023.