I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan.
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2012: Committee and Remaining Stages
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 5
As amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 5 are related, they may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, line 22, after "Reform," to insert the following:
"the Houses of the Oireachtas, relevant agencies and local authorities".
I would like to speak on amendments Nos. 1 and 2. I will not pursue amendment No. 5. I assume the Minister of State understands the logic that underpins amendments Nos. 1 and 2, which are similar in nature. The amendments seek to ensure there is relevant consultation before any decision is made. The amendments provide that "the Houses of the Oireachtas, relevant agencies and local authorities" will have to be consulted. Although it is stated in the Bill that this section relates to "corporate bodies", my understanding is that it relates primarily to the Local Government Management Services Board. The section will streamline some of the existing powers, functions and services of the board or of local authorities with the intention of saving money, eliminating waste and creating efficiencies. We do not have any difficulty with attempts to create efficiencies and save money, but we do have a difficulty with the proposal to give the Minister the sole power to make decisions in this regard. Therefore, the purpose of amendments Nos. 1 and 2 is to increase the democratic input into such decisions.
Section 5 will give the Minister the power to establish bodies to assist him or her in carrying out these duties. Given that some of the functions of any such body are likely to be among the key functions performed by organisations, including local authorities, it is not appropriate for them to be transferred by means of a mere ministerial order. Such an approach has the potential to undermine significantly the operation of local government. I am sure we will discuss the local government aspects of this matter as we make progress through the various sections of the Bill. There is a fear that many of the decisions that are being made on local government reform are not being made on the basis of genuine consultation. Democratic involvement is needed as part of inclusive negotiations with all the relevant bodies, such as the local authorities and the agencies that might be losing powers or being subsumed into other organisations. There is a particular need for the Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas to be consulted. That is central to these amendments. The primary function of this House is to ensure Senators can make an input into important decisions of this nature.
Amendment No. 2 is similar to amendment No. 1 in the sense that it aims to provide for greater clarity and accountability. Section 5 of the Bill provides that when the Minister is making an order and potentially taking some services away, he or she shall have regard to "the promotion of efficiency, effectiveness and economy in the organisation and provision of the services in question". I suggest that a determination should also be made on whether centralisation, regionalisation or localisation are desirable when the number of bodies providing these services is being reduced. Many questions should be asked when a decision of this nature is being made. The local authorities and the Houses of the Oireachtas are uniquely well-placed to recognise whether any of these criteria are being met. That should not be determined solely by means of a ministerial order. This House and the Lower House should have a say as well.
Any proposal to transfer or subsume powers is important, even if the changes in some areas are slight. While we do not want to micro-manage every aspect of what a Minister does, we should have a say when he or she intends to take powers from one body and give them to another body. We should ensure that some of the decisions that could be made under this legislation are referred to this House to be decided on by democratically elected Members of the Oireachtas. Such decisions — we will speak later in this debate about the proposal to give the Minister the power to amalgamate local authorities — should not be made by the Minister alone. There will be a democratic deficit if the people who live in those communities are not consulted. I suggest such a decision should be the subject of a plebiscite in the locality in question, rather than being made by means of a ministerial order. I will not speak on amendment No. 5 as I do not intend to pursue it. I remind the Minister that I have proposed amendments No. 1 and 2 to ensure that when these decisions are being made, there is relevant consultation with "the Houses of the Oireachtas, relevant agencies and local authorities", rather than such decisions being made by the Minister alone.
These amendments seek to introduce a requirement for the consent of or consultation with the Oireachtas, agencies and local authorities in the administrative process of establishing new bodies and in the preparation of transfer orders in the context of bodies that are being dissolved. The principle of a Minister in a sector such as local government having the power to establish bodies to provide shared services for local authorities is long established and is recognised by the courts. Senator Cullinane acknowledged that this Bill will strengthen the link between the principles and policies in primary legislation and the bodies to be established. The consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform is required before any body can be established and any transfer order can be made. Therefore, the issue of efficiency and effectiveness within the sector and the wider public service efficiency and reform agenda will both be fully considered. The rationalisation programme has already been delayed due to the necessity to dissolve bodies through primary legislation. It would not be in the interests of efficiency to accept amendments Nos. 1 and 2 and I do not propose to do so. I acknowledge that the Senator is not pursuing amendment No. 5.
I thank the Minister of State for her response. I am pressing these amendments. Given that some of the functions that may be transferred are key local government functions, the Government should ensure the local authorities and the Members of this House are properly consulted. The reserved and executive functions that form part of the infrastructure of local government are important. It is only right that there should be democratic input into any decision that could remove power, however slight, from local government. As I said on Second Stage, if we continue to take power from local authorities, there might not be much local government left. It is intended to take responsibility for water services away from local authorities. A number of other plans are in train as well. Many people are asking what services local authorities will end up providing if we keep hollowing out what they do. I appreciate that this section of the Bill does not deal directly with that. We are concerned that as a result of this Bill, the potential will exist for some powers to be removed from local authorities and subsumed into national organisations. I fail to see why the Minister of State cannot accept that the Members of this House and of the Dáil are elected to make sure the decisions that are made are scrutinised properly. It is inappropriate to give the Minister of the day a free hand to make any decisions he or she deems necessary — in this case, shifting powers around — without having to consult this House or the Dáil. I ask the Minister of State to consider the points I have made. If she is not willing to do so, I will have to call a vote on these amendments.
I reiterate that the link between the principles and policies in primary legislation is being strengthened in this Bill. Any decision that is made by the Minister will have to be made in that context. The focus of this Bill is relatively narrow. Senator Cullinane referred to the wider issue of local government reform, which is not encompassed in what we are talking about. We should confine ourselves to the narrow focus of this Bill. There is a long-established precedent that the Minister should be able to make these decisions. As I have said, I do not propose to accept Senator Cullinane's amendments.
As the Minister of State has said, a specific provision in the section of the Bill dealing with local government will allow a single official to manage both of the electoral areas that are to be merged until the new system is put in place. I suggest that consultation is extremely important in this regard. In that context, I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister of State correspondence sent by the Minister, Deputy Hogan, to county managers in recent days. The Minister wants a questionnaire to be sent to every local authority member in the country. It seems that will be done by means of a very circuitous route. The questionnaire will be sent to the county managers, who will send it on to each councillor in his or her area.
Is this relevant to the amendments before the House?
It will be relevant in a second, if the Chair allows me to finish. I would like the Minister of State to ask the Minister, Deputy Hogan, to extend the amount of time that is being provided for this.
We talk about consultation and inclusiveness. Most councillors have not yet seen the questionnaire but are being asked to return it by tomorrow week. I take this opportunity to ask the Minister of State to deal with the matter urgently and to ask the Minister to extend the date to at least 22 June. It is archaic in this day and age to send out a document to each county manager to be sent on to elected representatives. Why could it not be sent directly to each elected representative? I ask the Minister of State for a direct response on this and I thank the Cathaoirleach for allowing me contribute.
I can see where the Senator is coming from. We do not want powers removed from local government but on the other hand we do not want to tie its hands or those of the Minister if he sees the need for immediacy in the establishment or dissolution of a body. We are aware of the circuitous route legislation can take. Therefore, I can understand why the Minister of State will not accept this amendment because the Bill is tight and focused. In general, all of us would be against removing powers from local government. We seek devolution of power rather than its removal. I know where the Senator is coming from on this, but I can envision issues and avenues arising where immediacy is required and where the Minister's hands should not be tied behind his or her back.
I support Senator Landy on the need for a time extension because of the circuitous route the e-mail is taking. I took it on myself to send it directly to some councillors because I am aware that sometimes people sit on an e-mail for a few days before forwarding it.
I will convey the message to the Minister but I imagine he is aware of this already.
With respect, he is not aware of it. Some of the associations were trying to contact him this morning to highlight the issue, but they failed to make contact. They asked me to raise the issue here today. I would appreciate it if the Minister of State brought it to his attention.
The Minister has not been contactable for a few weeks now.
Perhaps I can clarify that. I was at a meeting with the Minister this morning with a particular body and that is probably the reason contact could not be made with him this morning. I will convey the message to the Minister.
Is the amendment being pressed?
Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 11; Níl, 27.
Tá
- Barrett, Sean D.
- Cullinane, David.
- Leyden, Terry.
- MacSharry, Marc.
- Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor.
- Ó Domhnaill, Brian.
- O’Brien, Darragh.
- O’Donovan, Denis.
- O’Sullivan, Ned.
- Power, Averil.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
Níl
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Brennan, Terry.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Coghlan, Eamonn.
- Coghlan, Paul.
- Comiskey, Michael.
- Conway, Martin.
- Cummins, Maurice.
- D’Arcy, Jim.
- D’Arcy, Michael.
- Gilroy, John.
- Harte, Jimmy.
- Heffernan, James.
- Henry, Imelda.
- Higgins, Lorraine.
- Keane, Cáit.
- Kelly, John.
- Landy, Denis.
- Moloney, Marie.
- Mulcahy, Tony.
- Mullins, Michael.
- Noone, Catherine.
- O’Keeffe, Susan.
- O’Neill, Pat.
- van Turnhout, Jillian.
- Whelan, John.
Tellers: Tá, Senators David Cullinane and Diarmuid Wilson; Níl, Senators Paul Coghlan and Susan O’Keeffe.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 4, line 33, after "Minister," to insert the following:
"in consultation with the Houses of the Oireachtas, relevant agencies and local authorities".
Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 12; Níl, 27.
Tá
- Barrett, Sean D.
- Cullinane, David.
- Leyden, Terry.
- MacSharry, Marc.
- Mullen, Rónán.
- Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor.
- Ó Domhnaill, Brian.
- O’Brien, Darragh.
- O’Donovan, Denis.
- O’Sullivan, Ned.
- Power, Averil.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
Níl
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Brennan, Terry.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Coghlan, Eamonn.
- Coghlan, Paul.
- Comiskey, Michael.
- Conway, Martin.
- Cummins, Maurice.
- D’Arcy, Jim.
- D’Arcy, Michael.
- Gilroy, John.
- Harte, Jimmy.
- Heffernan, James.
- Henry, Imelda.
- Higgins, Lorraine.
- Keane, Cáit.
- Kelly, John.
- Landy, Denis.
- Moloney, Marie.
- Mulcahy, Tony.
- Mullins, Michael.
- Noone, Catherine.
- O’Keeffe, Susan.
- O’Neill, Pat.
- van Turnhout, Jillian.
- Whelan, John.
Tellers: Tá, Senators David Cullinane and Trevor Ó Clochartaigh; Níl, Senators Paul Coghlan and Susan O’Keeffe.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 5, lines 4 and 5, after "centralisation" to insert "or localisation".
This amendment seeks to insert the words "or localisation" after the word "centralisation" in lines four and five on page five. The intent of the Bill is set out in section 5, paragraph (d), which refers to “the desirability of regionalisation or centralisation” but it does not mention localisation. The focus or logic of the approach of Government and local government reform and governance during the past decade or more has been on centralisation, sucking more power into the centre. We have seen that in local authorities, the health service, with the disbandment of the old health boards, and other areas as well. The principle of subsidiarity should also underpin what the Government does. There should be no predetermined outcomes of simply wanting to centralise or regionalise, there should be a localised element to it as well. The Minister of State and her party when in opposition would have made similar arguments, namely, that democracy is best served at the lowest possible level. Senator Landy made an interesting point yesterday in response to a Fianna Fáil Senator that France and the UK have a much higher representation of local public representatives per head of population. I am not saying we should have the same model as France or the UK but we do not have a big number of public representatives in this State by comparison with the UK. If we were to continue on this drift towards centralisation and regionalisation and not have a local focus, that would be a mistake.
I will not labour the point because our problem with the wording is that it sets reform on a path that is about centralisation and not one that could be about localisation and devolving power to authorities in the local government. I would be interested to hear the Minister of State's response.
The amendment, as the Senator said, requires the Minister to have regard to the desirability for localisation as well as centralisation of services in making decisions in regard to the establishment of a State body. Localisation of service delivery is the existing default position. In other words, it is assumed under the subsection that the local authority provides the service. In order to maintain the services with diminishing resources it is necessary that staff and management in local authorities work together to find efficiencies of operation and share service delivery where possible. I do not propose to accept the amendment on the basis that it is already the default position that the service would be provided locally.
If it is default position, it should be easy for the Minister of State to accept the amendment.
I welcome the Minister of State. I support the amendment. It may be that small is beautiful. The managerial speak of the Department with responsibility for local government from many of its manuals, which are about 20 years out of date, assume that people at the top know better than others what they should think and do. The problem with that is that it comes without numbers. We have numbers from an bord snip nua, which I put on the record yesterday, that the number of senior civil servants rose by 72% in a period in which the number of ordinary civil servants rose by 27%, and we also had two rounds of benchmarking. If we had done the numbers on whether things are best localised or centralised, we might get a different result than that which is assumed, namely, that big is beautiful and that small is ugly. I am concerned there is a momentum behind this that operates without reference to the numbers.
I would cite Mr. McLoughlin in the review group's report and I wish more Ministers would update us on his report, a point to which I return. He dealt with the impact of the moratorium on recruitment in a paper he presented to the Kenmare conference two years ago and found that the number of directors was down by 7%, clerical and administration staff were down by 4%, professional and technical staff were down by 3.7% and outdoor staff were down by 13%.Too much managerialism in the system leads to loss of appreciation of what can be done locally. Mr. McLoughlin had an interesting photograph in his paper of a man called Andre digging a hole, obviously depicting the productive part of local government and he had nine managers looking at it, and they said "We might need to get rid of Andre as part of our new efficiently drive". There should be an annual report at this stage on the progress of the implementation of the recommendations in Mr. McLoughlin's report.
Yesterday I mentioned Jennifer Hough's article which set out that there are five directors of services in a local authority in a small county such as Carlow while Westmeath, with nearly twice the population, gets by with two. In the same article, Ms Hough observed that having read what the Minister, Deputy Hogan, had to say in the Seanad debate, "all Mr. Hogan offered was more platitudes and the promise of yet another report". Moreover, elsewhere in the article she noted "the Dublin city librarian earns more than the prime minister of Spain". Consequently, one must consider different ways to deliver local government. At present it appears to be highly bureaucratic, at a time when it is getting rid of the outdoor workers. In addition, one must know what managerial efficiencies will be available on foot of the loss of large functions in respect of roads, housing, health and refuse collection. Members also have voted recently to transfer the administration of driving licences to the people in Ballina and responsibility for water is about to be moved out. When do such managers actually become accountable? Should the concept that small is beautiful not be considered in respect of local government? There is a problem and I am unsure whether the Custom House as a whole is addressing seriously these issues, even though the Secretary General of the Department sat on the group that produced the McLoughlin report. The House should be told the numbers from these efficiencies and the gains. While everyone supports the need to reform this country because of the difficulties in which we find ourselves, I hope that when Ministers make speeches about local government in Ireland without referring to the McLoughlin report, it is not because they intend that it simply go away if nothing is done about it. Ministers must confront the senior people in county councils and in the Department itself to ascertain what they are doing because they are extremely expensive and there appears to be less and less product emerging at the far end. Perhaps it is time to have more localisation in local government as proposed in this amendment.
Lest it be thought I was opposed to this amendment because of my opposition to the devolution of powers to local government, I wish to speak to the Act and to the amendment, in that the Act referred to as "the Act of 1971" is the Local Government Services (Corporate Bodies) Act 1971. The Minister of State referred to the local government body that has responsibility at present and so this is the Act that is governing the body. Consequently, Members are discussing and are working on local government. This is not at all about devolution of functions but pertains to the Local Government Services (Corporate Bodies) Act 1971. I would be completely in agreement with the amendment, were it the case that local government was being left out and regional government or centralisation was being included in an Act, or that some functions were being taken that were not there. However, it is the opposite because this Bill pertains to the Local Government Services (Corporate Bodies) Act 1971, which is a local government Act. The amendment should be ruled out of order because it does not refer to the points on which the Senator has spoken. I agree with the Senator's point that local government should always be considered in any devolution of function or powers at local level. However, I wish to put on record that I will be with the Minister in this regard.
I concur with Senator Keane's comments. While I have the highest of respect for Senator Cullinane, he has misinterpreted the original statement within the Bill. He probably has honed in on something and perhaps has had a little bit of tunnel vision in this regard. Consequently, having heard the clear and eloquent explanation given by the Minister of State, I ask the Senator to withdraw this amendment. It is clear that what he has sought to have included by way of an amendment already is encompassed in the body of the Bill and with the greatest of respect, I ask Senator Cullinane to withdraw this amendment as it is unnecessary.
As Senators Keane and Landy have just noted, this provision does not in any way preclude any decisions in respect of devolution. This part of the Bill relates to section 3(1) of the 1971 Act and consequently, this is not about precluding any devolution of functions or powers to local government. This provision is specific to this particular area and as I have already stated, the default position is that a service is delivered locally. This is where a decision is being made to deliver it either regionally or centrally. Consequently, it does not in any way preclude decisions in respect of further devolution of powers.
There was no misunderstanding. I accept the Minister of State's point that Members are dealing with local government powers. However, this section of the Bill outlines the purpose for which bodies may be established under the 1971 Act. The Bill's digest sets out for the first time the nature of the services that may be provided by any body that would be established under the Act. It pertains to the provision of procurement services, the supply of goods and related services and the provision of agency services, including the collection of charges and late payment fees, as well as the provision of shared and centralised services. Consequently, I see no contradiction in including a formula of words because while I acknowledge the possibility of centralisation or regionalisation is there, localisation can mean a number of different things. It could mean shifting power from one local authority to another, such as, for example, from a city council to a town council or whatever. There has been no misinterpretation by Sinn Féin in this regard. Our problem is the entire drift is towards centralisation and towards sucking power to the centre. The entire focus and mindset is on that and not on localisation.
I reject the assertion that somehow there is a focus towards centralisation. This legislation pertains to efficiency and there are reasons one would do certain things in a shared way. This does not mean that somehow the entire focus of local government reform is on centralisation. I reject that proposition.
While it might be difficult for Senator Cullinane to accept he is wrong, perhaps on this occasion he might accept he is not right. Perhaps he will leave it at that without forcing an unnecessary vote.
Senator, that was not on the amendment. Is the amendment being pressed?
Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 11; Níl, 25.
Tá
- Barrett, Sean D.
- Cullinane, David.
- Leyden, Terry.
- MacSharry, Marc.
- Mullen, Rónán.
- Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor.
- Ó Domhnaill, Brian.
- O’Brien, Darragh.
- O’Donovan, Denis.
- O’Sullivan, Ned.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
Níl
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Brennan, Terry.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Coghlan, Eamonn.
- Coghlan, Paul.
- Comiskey, Michael.
- Conway, Martin.
- Cummins, Maurice.
- D’Arcy, Jim.
- D’Arcy, Michael.
- Gilroy, John.
- Harte, Jimmy.
- Heffernan, James.
- Henry, Imelda.
- Higgins, Lorraine.
- Keane, Cáit.
- Kelly, John.
- Landy, Denis.
- Moloney, Marie.
- Mulcahy, Tony.
- Mullins, Michael.
- O’Keeffe, Susan.
- O’Neill, Pat.
- Whelan, John.
Tellers: Tá, Senators David Cullinane and Trevor Ó Clochartaigh; Níl, Senators Paul Coghlan and Susan O’Keeffe.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 5, line 11, to delete "‘services' includes—" and substitute the following:
"‘services' not already being provided by boards may include—".
I will not speak for too long on this amendment because I want to hear the Minister of State's response before coming back to it. In some respects, this amendment is related to the first two amendments which sought a greater level of consultation. We are still on section 5 which deals with bodies that may be established under the 1971 Act. It states that the Minister can only establish a body to provide services which relate to the performance by him of his functions or the performance of a local authority and its functions.
Our problem is that we are trying to provide services which can be taken on by such bodies but which are at the moment, by and large, already being provided by local bodies and are not being transferred. It goes back to the point we were making initially about giving the Minister powers to make these decisions. We do not believe the Government should be undermining local government.
We are concerned here with the provision of procurement services, the supply of goods and related services, the provision of agency services, including the collection of charges and late payment fees, and the provision of shared and centralised services. Some of these services may be transferred from different bodies and the Local Government Management Agency, which is what this Bill is about.
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that services which are being provided by local government are not transferred into some national body without consulting the Oireachtas. Although it does not say so, it is related to the first two amendments.
Before I consider whether or not to press the amendment, I will listen to what the Minister of State has to say.
This amendment seeks to limit the services that the Minister may consider when deciding on the establishment of a body. Any services to be provided for by the new bodies will have to be contemplated by the Oireachtas under the new subsection (9). Therefore the description of services at subsection (9)(a) to (k) is sufficiently comprehensive and encompasses any services now performed by the existing agencies, and any services likely to be provided by an amalgamation or reorganisation of existing bodies, or indeed the establishment of new bodies under the legislation.
I suggest therefore that the amendment is not required and I do not propose to accept it.
Is the amendment being pressed?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 5 agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
Amendment No. 5 not moved.
Section 7 agreed to.
Sections 8 and 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 7, line 40 and in page 8, line 1 to delete paragraphs (f) and (g).
This amendment concerns the dissolution of the Limerick regeneration agencies for the north and south sides of the city. I am sure the Minister of State will be aware that many people in regeneration areas have genuine fears about the future of the process, not just in Limerick but in many parts of Dublin where regeneration was also promised. In order to allay such fears the Government should clearly spell out what it intends to do for the future of regeneration, including what will happen in Limerick, Dublin, Cork and Waterford where they are still waiting for regeneration schemes.
I understand that this measure specifically deals with the Limerick regeneration boards. There is a need to set out clear targets and timeframes for the completion of an ambitious building programme. It should be part of a stimulus package. There is much talk of the need for investment at the moment and a growth agenda, as well as using State funds whether from the National Pensions Reserve Fund, selling off State assets or using money from NAMA.
I agreed with the Labour Party's election manifesto pledge for a national retrofit programme to generate jobs. I fail to see, however, how that sits with abolishing these boards and the consequences that may have for regeneration programmes. Will regeneration remain as a stand alone programme within a local government structure or will it be totally subsumed to the extent that its focus will be blurred because of the Government's many pressing priorities?
In my speech on Second Stage yesterday, I mentioned that when the Limerick regeneration plan was first announced it was done with great fanfare. Yet we have seen 1,000 houses knocked and only 34 houses built. I assume that since the Minister of State is from Limerick herself, she is concerned about the slow pace of progress on these regeneration schemes. Perhaps she can indicate for us the logic of disbanding these boards and what exactly the Government intends to do to ensure that the promised regeneration schemes, which were necessary for Limerick's social integration, will go ahead. The Government should also ensure that people will not be left behind in this respect. I assume the Minister of State agrees that there is a lot of fear and concern in the directly affected communities about how all of this will play out. Is regeneration going to happen and, if so, at what pace and what is the timeframe? This amendment is about our concerns for the regeneration process. I await the Minister of State's response.
There is an important point in Senator Cullinane's amendment. Yesterday's debate did not refer to the savings to be made from the abolition of these two agencies. I am trying to get a more cost-conscious approach to the issues arising from the McLoughlin report. The Government needs to live within budgets, but no statement has been made on how much will be saved in this context. At the time, it might have seemed like a good idea to abolish both agencies but we have to see what costs and savings are involved. Will it enable us, as we all want, to build more houses in Limerick? I would be obliged if the Minister of State could give us an estimate of the savings from the abolition of the two quangos.
This amendment seeks to remove the provision to dissolve the Limerick regeneration agencies. The agencies had a cessation date built into their establishment orders, which is this summer. The Oireachtas confirmed this in the context of the Confirmation of Orders Act 2008. This Bill merely provides for the administration of that process. As stated earlier, the regeneration office will take over the regeneration function. I do not propose therefore to accept the amendment.
I wish, however, to respond to both Senators. It is my absolute intention to ensure that not only will we continue with regeneration but that we will speed up the process. Primarily, the winding up of these two agencies will not save a huge amount of money. We are talking about a structure that does not have a large number of people working for it. It will, however, speed up the process because it will all be brought under the one office. Up to now, for example, the council was responsible for most of the housing elements, and the regeneration agencies were responsible for other elements.
They are the three pillars of regeneration. There is physical, social and economic regeneration. The physical and the economic areas had not been progressing as well as we would have preferred but I am confident this will accelerate progress. Senators will be interested to learn that on Tuesday Limerick City Council approved a manager's report on the construction of 79 houses on Edward Street in the Ballinacurra Weston area. Other housing developments are progressing and, as Senator Cullinane noted, the intention is that 100 units will be under way this year.
I recognise that Senator Barrett is concerned with quantifying the money saved but this measure is not as much about saving money as about making the process more effective. I am confident that the winding up of the agencies will improve the process rather than hinder it in any way. I have engaged with people on an implementation plan for completion of the projects. That plan has to be agreed through local consultation, something of which Senator Cullinane will approve. Extensive consultation is ongoing with local communities on every element of regeneration. That will continue because their representation will continue. The intention is to bring further clarity to local residents on what is happening through these implementation plans, which we expect to be agreed in the near future. After extensive consultation with locals in all four of the regeneration areas in Limerick, I am confident this will improve the process.
In regard to the other regeneration projects, Ballymun has its own agency and a process is being agreed in this regard. I agree that other parts of the country also require regeneration. A number of areas in Dublin, in particular, require regeneration. That process has started but we need to ensure the money we invest is wisely spent so we can spend it on the work that needs to be done in the various parts of the country where regeneration is especially needed.
I hope that the process is speeded up in the way the Minister of State describes. I wish her well in that regard and welcome that Limerick City Council approved the construction of 79 new houses. She also mentioned an implementation plan. I support local consultation but I think we can agree that extensive consultation has already taken place with the relevant agencies. The problem is that the agencies have not fulfilled their mandate. I cannot hold the Minister of State responsible for that because previous Governments were to blame. Many of the residents with whom our public representatives have spoken genuinely fear that if the regeneration programme is subsumed into local government it will make matters worse rather than speed them up. It is not clear to us what effect the programme will have once it comes under the remit of local government. I listened to what the Minister of State had to say but I must also heed our public representatives on the ground in Limerick when they relay to us the concerns of residents. While I hope she is correct in her prediction that it will speed up the process, I am still minded to press the amendment because of our genuine concerns about the agencies being subsumed into the local authority.
On the broader issue of regeneration, if the Government was to introduce some form of stimulus in the short to medium term an investment in regeneration and retrofitting would get people back to work and bring social and economic dividends. This is an area in which our limited resources would be well spent in terms of stimulating the economy and any initiative in this regard would get the full support of my party.
There was genuine concern when it was first announced a couple of months ago but consultation has been ongoing since then. I have personally participated in meetings with community representatives from each of the four regeneration areas as recently as last Friday. The positive nature of this development is understood. If the Deputy takes a different view, however, he is perfectly free to press his amendment but I assure him that people have been reassured by the consultation that took place subsequent to the announcement.
Question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Sections 10 to 18, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.
Question put: "That the Bill do now pass."
The Seanad divided: Tá, 32; Níl, 5.
Tá
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Brennan, Terry.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Coghlan, Paul.
- Comiskey, Michael.
- Conway, Martin.
- Cummins, Maurice.
- D’Arcy, Jim.
- D’Arcy, Michael.
- Gilroy, John.
- Harte, Jimmy.
- Heffernan, James.
- Henry, Imelda.
- Higgins, Lorraine.
- Keane, Cáit.
- Kelly, John.
- Landy, Denis.
- Leyden, Terry.
- MacSharry, Marc.
- Moloney, Marie.
- Mulcahy, Tony.
- Mullins, Michael.
- O’Brien, Darragh.
- O’Donovan, Denis.
- O’Keeffe, Susan.
- O’Neill, Pat.
- O’Sullivan, Ned.
- van Turnhout, Jillian.
- Whelan, John.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
Níl
- Barrett, Sean D.
- Cullinane, David.
- Mullen, Rónán.
- Norris, David.
- Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Paul Coghlan and Susan O’Keeffe; Níl, Senators David Cullinane and Trevor Ó Clochartaigh.
Question declared carried.