JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT, HERITAGE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 4 Jun 2008

Local Government Reform: Discussion with Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

Chairman

We are dealing with the Green Paper on local government reform. All members have a copy of it. We are joined by officials from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. I welcome Mr. Des Dowling, assistant secretary, Mr. Fergal O'Coigligh, principal officer, and Mr. Eoin Corrigan, assistant principal. I thank them for attending. The format of the meeting is a brief presentation by the officials followed by a question and answer session. Before Mr. Dowling begins his presentation I draw his attention to the fact that members of this committee have absolute privilege in the Oireachtas but this does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way to make him or her identifiable.

We have asked the officials to give us an information update on local government and the procedures that will flow from the reform. I understand the Minister will come before the committee to discuss the broader political aspects of it in due course. I invite Mr. Dowling to proceed.

Mr. Des Dowling

I thank the Chairman and the committee for the opportunity to update it on the Green Paper on local government. I will give an overview of the Green Paper context before handing over to my colleague, Mr. O'Coigligh, who will cover some of the content of the Green Paper in greater detail.

The Green Paper on local government, entitled Stronger Local Democracy - Options for Change, was published by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, on 22 April last. The paper takes its primary mandate from a commitment in the programme for Government to publish a Green Paper on local government for public consultation, to be followed by a White Paper and legislation if necessary. The programme for Government specifies a number of areas to be covered in the Green Paper. In particular, the programme for Government committed to the introduction of a directly elected mayor for Dublin with executive powers by 2011 and to the examination of a number of other specific issues. These were ensuring proper balance of power at local levels between the manager and the elected representatives; directly elected mayors-chairs; the establishment of town councils in those towns that have shown significant population growth in recent years, including the upgrading of the former town commission towns, where appropriate, to full town councils; the provision of quality customer service to the public; and expenditure limits at local elections.

Arising from this commitment, a first public consultation phase was launched last July. A consultative committee was then established in September by the Minister to advise on the drafting of the Green Paper. The consultative committee was chaired by me as assistant secretary over the local government division and otherwise comprised representatives of the three councillor associations - the ACCC, AMAI and LAMA, the County and City Managers Association, the Departments of Finance, Transport and Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs and three individual appointees of the Minister. The policy context for the Green Paper must be seen in the light of it being some 12 years since the last major policy review of local government under Better Local Government. Therefore, aside from the specific matters contained in the programme for Government for attention, the Green Paper provided an opportunity to consider a range of other issues relating to the operation of local government. It is also important to note that many other countries have continued to develop their systems of local government and there was interest in seeing what could be learned from those.

More than 80 submissions were received from the public and interested parties as part of this first phase of public consultation. Among other issues identified for attention in the submissions and in the work of the consultative committee, or elsewhere, were the following: the need to strengthen the connection between local government and the local citizen, particularly in urban areas, an issue identified in the taskforce on active citizenship that reported in March 2007; ensuring value for money and efficiency in service delivery, an issue relevant to the budget 2008 announcement of an efficiency review of all spending programmes; the linked issues of local authority financing and staffing - the task assigned to the commission on taxation to consider future funding options for local government is relevant in this regard; external challenges to local government brought about by population growth and greater diversity, and the ongoing need to tackle social exclusion in those areas that have been left behind by wider economic success; and the need to ensure greater protection for the environment and to meet the challenges of moving to a low carbon economy.

In considering further local government reform the Green Paper explores the context of local government within the overall political and administrative system. It notes that Irish local government is weaker than in many countries and discusses how the electoral system, traditional centralising forces and weak local political structures have all played a part in shaping the present system. It also notes the loyalties to county boundaries and the absence of any consensus as to how a more rational tier of sub-county local government could be introduced. The paper also notes that we live in a world that is more connected than ever before, and that decisions taken locally must be at one with national, and sometimes even global, obligations.

As stated by the Minister in the foreword of the Green Paper, "solving the dual ambition of, at once, providing greater local autonomy while ensuring consistency with national policy goes to the heart of the debate on this next phase in the evolution of local government". That is a particular point of concern for the Department as we must strive to find the right balance between encouraging local initiative, overseeing on behalf of the Minister and as charged by the Oireachtas an appropriate legislative dispensation between central and local authority, and encouragement of the local contribution to the achievement of national and indeed international objectives. That balance must give due recognition to the political context involving the interplay and role of political representation at central and local levels.

Against that broad background and the picture painted for all concerned as to how local government ought to look, the paper states that the ideal shape of local government in Ireland would include the following traits: a system with greater autonomy and less dependency on the centre; a system where the instinctive reaction of local people is to look with confidence to their own local democratic institutions to solve local problems; in turn, a system which central government can look to when considering the most appropriate level of government to deliver both new and existing public services; and a system that recognises the value of local democratic leadership and decision making, but which does not lose sight of the importance of the efficient delivery of services. Those are long-term objectives. The recommendations and options for discussion set out in the paper are aimed at strengthening local democratic leadership to enable it to evolve in that direction.

Before concluding the introductory comments, I wish to make some additional general references. The approach to the Green Paper and the further deliberation on it will be well informed by the recent review of the public service completed by the OECD. Among other things, the review by the OECD recognises the role of local government within the broader system of administration. It acknowledges the potentially greater role of local government to give greater leadership at local level, and while seeing challenges in parts of the system, it also recognises the exemplars in a number of areas, such as that of shared services. In that context, the Department acknowledges the considerable contribution made by local authorities across the country to the continued environmental, social and economic development of Ireland. The roles of local representatives and the professional management cadre of county managers and their support staff are not ones we take for granted. In future, we will seek to ensure that the benefits of existing approaches are enhanced and that they provide a spur for continued positive development. The purpose of the Green Paper is to give a strong platform for debate on all of the issues covered recognising that consensus on all aspects is not possible but aiming to give a sufficient understanding of all aspects to allow final decisions by the Government and enactment of legislation by the Oireachtas in due course. I look forward to hearing the views of the committee on the matters contained in the Green Paper, which will be given close consideration. I call on my colleague, Mr. O'Coigligh to continue.

Mr. Fergal O’Coigligh

I will move on to the specific proposals contained in the Green Paper. Having regard to the programme for Government and the context outlined by Mr. Dowling, the Green Paper includes a number of key recommendations for reform but with options as to how these might be achieved. I will outline the key recommendations.

The directly elected mayor for Dublin, as proposed in the programme for Government, should be a mayor for the Dublin region, covering the existing four major Dublin local authorities. The mayor would have a role in key strategic areas such as regional planning, housing, waste management, and long-term water and waste water management. The mayor would also become chairman of the Dublin transport authority.

It is suggested that directly elected mayors for all counties and cities could increase the democratic legitimacy of local government. Mayors could also be given key policy functions, such as proposing the annual budget and development plans. This would maintain the principle that local politicians set policy while managers are responsible for executive decision making.

The paper considers that more use could be made of town government by devolving some local decision making powers from county to town, but within an overall county strategy.

There are many examples of more direct citizen participation in local decision making around the world, for example, the use of plebiscites, town meetings and petition rights. The paper suggests that local government should be able to experiment with these innovative types of engagement.

Efficient service delivery will continue to be a priority. Towards 2016 sets out an agenda of continuous change while the recent OECD report also makes recommendations as to how to put in place an integrated public service, including local government, to meet the needs of the coming decades.

The proposals on a Dublin regional mayor raise the question of how regional governance can support the emergence of stronger gateway areas. The paper asks whether new structures could be introduced in areas such as the Limerick-Shannon area while respecting the existing county boundaries.

The paper suggests that those powers which have been taken from councillors and given to managers could be returned to the political system. However, this would require greater legal clarity as to the parameters in which councillors are being asked to take decisions. A new role for the local authority law agent could be developed in this regard. It is a challenge to central government to be clear when tasking local government with decisions, for example, to implement EU directives. The development of a new relationship between local and central government is advocated.

In accordance with the programme for Government, the paper discusses the issue of ethics and the introduction of spending limits for local elections. It suggests the need for greater cohesion between local government law and general ethics legislation. A clearer oversight role for the Standards in Public Office Commission is proposed. It is recommended that local electoral expenditure limits be introduced but that the bureaucracy involved in any new procedures be kept to a minimum. There has been separate correspondence with the committee on this issue.

On the significant issues that are to be addressed, the Green Paper sets out the broad direction for change. The consultation process under way seeks to tease out the major issues before more settled policy emerges in the White Paper. These issues include: determining the exact functions of the Dublin mayor, the relationship between that office and the other four local authorities, including their mayors, and the role of the Dublin Regional Authority; the approach to mayors more generally, and whether they should be introduced in all areas, the method of election and how these issues are to be decided; and how to consider the demand for new town councils - these councils can bring local representation closer to local people but have a potential impact on resources and efficient service delivery. Further issues include determining how best to manage the relationship between local government and national government and the ongoing issue of local government financing. The paper explores the issues surrounding local government financing, having regard to models of local finance-raising in other jurisdictions. The discussion in the document sets the scene for the consideration of this issue by the Commission on Taxation, which has been tasked with examining the financing of local government.

The Green Paper was published in April and the Minister has initiated a process of public consultation thereon. Six regional seminars have been organised for June and early July, to which the public and all councillors have been invited. We distributed a detailed document containing the questions that will arise at the seminars with a view to focusing the debate. Members may have seen it. It is hoped to finalise a White Paper by the end of the year and it is expected that legislation will arise therefrom in 2009. As the Chairman indicated, the Minister has indicated he would be happy to discuss the Green Paper with the committee at a convenient time.

Deputy Pádraic McCormack

I wanted to ask about the timescale for what is to happen next but it has been answered. There are to be public seminars, after which a White Paper and legislation will be produced. The delegates are very optimistic in believing legislation will be in the Dáil before the end of the year if there are to be seminars and feedback.

The publication of the Green Paper is very welcome and gives us all an opportunity to determine the best approach. It refers to the options for better customer service. It deals mostly with directly elected mayors, the managerial system vis-à-vis the members of local authorities and the nature of public representation. However, the focus is almost exclusively on elected members of local authorities. What about the responsibilities towards other elected members who cannot be members of local authorities any longer?

Since the abolition of the dual mandate – I was a member of both Galway city and county councils at various times – the service to me has deteriorated tremendously. We are still elected representatives for our areas but we have no opportunity to raise matters of concern at meetings, which we had previously, despite the fact that when the legislation to abolish the dual mandate was being considered, we were assured by the then Minister, Deputy Martin Cullen, that elected Members of the Oireachtas would continue to have the same rights as elected members of local authorities. From my experience, this has proven not to be the case.

A development in local authorities over fairly recent years was the appointment of programme managers. When one approaches the manager with a problem, as one sometimes must do, one simply receives a one-line acknowledgment. Sometimes one does not even receive this until one rings for a second or third time. Even letters are not being answered. If they are eventually answered, the reply is that the problem was passed on to the director of services, after which one hears no more about it. What safeguards are in the Green Paper for elected members who are no longer members of local authorities? Why are they being prevented altogether from enjoying the rights they enjoyed as members of local authorities?

Deputy Ciarán Lynch

I thank the officials for their briefing. Like anyone who served at local government level, I welcome the publication of the Green Paper and certainly welcome the philosophy contained in it. However, it is not as specific on actions as it is overladen with philosophy.

I have a number of questions on what I heard today. I am informed that local government reform will be "cost neutral". Will the delegates clarify what "cost neutral" means? Does it mean local authorities will remain within their existing budgets and that the reform process will have to take place within existing budgets? Does it mean funds currently held at national government level will be transferred to local government? Reform cannot take place without the proper structures and finances being put in place. It must also have an objective. The Health Service Executive, being a case in point, was the subject of a great reform programme but what were its objectives? Local government reform will need a clearly stated objective. Its first objective should be to improve the processes within which city and county managers, public representatives and the staff of local authorities operate. People should see a better form of local government in which the Standards in Public Office Commission has a role to play. Apart from tackling the electoral register, expenditure in local elections needs to be clarified. Will that form part of the White Paper or delivered in separate legislation? I am also interested in the transfer of powers from councillors to managers and the processes it will entail.

In Cork the publication of the Green Paper was much anticipated. Unfortunately, it was a disappointment on the status of new towns. Carrigaline, for example, is a large town but it does not have town council status. Many town council structures were granted 50 years ago but many new towns have emerged since which are larger and have no council structure in place.

What powers will be given to directly elected mayors? If they are just to chair meetings, it could be an expensive process. Will their roles be developed and will they be given real power? A question also arises about the scheduling of mayoral elections. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has suggested the election to elect a Dublin area mayor will be held in 2011, yet the local elections are scheduled for next year with a five-year term. Would it not make more sense for the mayoral election to coincide with them?

The issues faced by local government can be no different from those faced by central government. At times, cross-Department and cross-agency approaches need to be taken on certain issues. The Green Paper lacks potential for the development of stronger and more inclusive legislative roles for local authorities in areas such as justice, education and health. Douglas in Cork, for example, is one of the fastest growing areas outside the greater Dublin area. In the past 30 years housing estate after housing estate has been built there on country boreens without the core development of local health centres and schools. If communities are more than bricks and mortar, there needs to be more joined-up thinking in local government to tackle the issues faced by areas such as Douglas.

Mr. Des Dowling

The intention is to have a White Paper by the end of the year. I do not know if my colleagues will agree but the drafting of the White Paper is the easiest bit. The difficulty lies in fully fleshing it out and getting a clear view of what it should contain.

The drafting of legislation is another matter. Legislation would follow from the White Paper. It would not be published this year but in 2009 to give effect to any decisions contained in the White Paper. This would be subject to Oireachtas approval in due course.

A series of points were made about the customer service aspect of local authorities. I do not believe we can do justice to all aspects of the services provided by local authorities on a daily basis.

We are conscious of the importance of appropriate communication with Oireachtas Members. The abolition of the dual mandate was a significant change. Various arrangements have been made to deal with the changed situation. Deputy McCormack has his own experience of this and I am sure it varies from place to place. There are regular meetings between managerial staff and public representatives.

The Green Paper seeks to pick up on changes in recent years, particularly the significant investment in managerial aspects of local government as part of the better local government initiative. Anyone who experienced the system before and after the introduction of the initiative will acknowledge the strengthening, in particular at director level, of the range of services provided by local authorities.

The connection between the local authority and the citizen needs to be emphasised. A key element of the Green Paper is not just service delivery but connection with the citizen. How responsive can local government be to the requirements of the citizen and society? It must not just address the connection on quality of service but the way it responds to changing needs in society.

A point was made on the emphasis on philosophy and perhaps this is partly because it is a Green Paper, intended to provoke different reactions to these matters. It is better if we can get some degree of consensus on the objectives and the direction in which we want local government to move. Having done that, perhaps the second task of determining what shape this will take will become clearer to us.

While the issue of costs and financial matters is traversed, we are not making it a point of clear principle in the document because the overall funding aspect of local government is really a very significant issue in its own right. The Green Paper adverts to it, and this is coming back to one of the other points on town councils. Undoubtedly, as regards structures, it is not a question of dealing with them in the abstract. One of the aspects is cost, but it is not the only factor. If this stuff was easy we should have seen much more significant changes to local government in terms of town councils before now.

The Deputy rightly points out that to a degree, history has been the primary determinant as to the evenness or otherwise as regards where town government exists. To date, all we can say is there has not been a clear-cut consensus to move from the existing system. However, I hope the debate encouraged by the Green Paper will draw us nearer to concluding where the next steps might be in terms of whatever adjustments need to be made to the system. Having regard to the variability, the Deputy quotes a particular example in Cork. Other examples might equally serve as well.

The word "reform" might not be the most comfortable of words at times, and we are essentially in the business of determining how local government can evolve in the changing situation. The need for change has been highlighted in some of the points made. Change is certainly not an end in itself and the focus on ensuring that the citizen in his or her own home sees services being provided in a manner that makes sense, offers good value for money and responds to individual need goes to the heart of what we are trying to achieve.

The Green Paper puts particular emphasis on the locally elected member, as personified in the possibility of a mayor. As I indicated, the question of the connection to the system, as explained in the Green Paper, seemed to be key to this, and the whole question of how appropriate leadership can be given at local level. To date, considerable emphasis has been put on the managerial system in that role and the Green Paper opens up the possibility that above and beyond this the question of a mayor is giving a very clear mandate for a leader directly elected by the people - possibly offering a counterpoise to concerns around the level of participation by individuals in society and their sense of connectedness with the local authority. There is, too, the possibility that directly electing a mayor will bring home to people in a new and different way the fact that this person is directly answerable to them for service and other aspects of administration in their own area.

I appreciate the point the Deputy made on the timing of local elections and the commitment to a directly elected mayor in Dublin. This is a programme for Government commitment and the Minister and the Cabinet will ultimately determine these matters. As matters stand, however, these are the dates we are working to. On the broader sense of service, clearly we will take cognisance of everything that is said to us here to see how it might be reflected in the continuing deliberations on the Green Paper. An important point has been made on local government's connectedness with other service provision. The Green Paper seeks to pick up on other policy initiatives such as the national spatial and climate change strategies, delivering homes and sustaining communities - the housing strategy. Part of the sustaining and sustainable communities philosophy is connection with other areas such as health, education, justice and so on. As has been acknowledged, we have new joint policing committees, which operate under the jurisdiction of the local authority. However, it is not just about those - it is also about the other connection of services, whether health, education or whatever, which make the difference between the bricks and mortar aspects, as it were, of the broader community focus.

Some emphasis was put on the role of city and county development boards as being the places where agencies might appropriately interact to join up approaches on this. As we know, the OECD review has put particular emphasis on the need for a more integrated public service. It is right that we should, perhaps, try to see whether we have fully and effectively reflected those points in the Green Paper to ensure that while it is about local government, it also recognises local government's place within the broader system of public administration.

All I can say at the moment in response to the question about expenditure at local elections is that the Minister has written to the committee to indicate that he would like to engage with it on this. Until he does that, as an official, I cannot say any more on this.

Senator Paudie Coffey

I acknowledge the role of local authorities over many decades. I was elected a councillor in 1999, a position I held for eight years. In 1999, the programme, Better Local Government, was introduced. The Department will consult a great many councillors around the country and probably will hold a plebiscite among them, as is proposed in the Green Paper, on whether that was better local government. From talking to former colleagues, I am sure it is a cross-party belief that it was not better local government. Councillors' powers were reduced in many ways. Also, on the establishment of strategic policy committees, corporate policy groups and county development boards, while the philosophy behind them was quite good, many of them just ended up being talking shops. That is a frank admission from me, as a former councillor.

The role of many of the strategic policy committees set up, say, for environment or planning is dictated by EU or national policy. Councillors feel hamstrung in having to adopt national policy in this regard. Here we are with a platform that has the potential to deliver real policy reform for local authorities, but in reality, it cannot because of the national implications. That is something I have certainly experienced.

The Department will find when it consults the councillors that they believe they have an unfunded mandate. Local authority members are at the coalface every day, probably more than Oireachtas Members, in terms of dealing with the general Joe Soap. They must deal with all types of issues, infrastructure, housing, anti-social behaviour, policing and whatever. Local authorities now have so many obligations and responsibilities and they just do not have the resources to deal with them. They are coming under increasing pressure from State agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, to take one example, on waste management. I spoke in this committee about legacy landfills - where legacy issues are now being brought forward due to EU regulations and councils are expected to deal with them. It could involve a 30-year legacy of an old landfill that was dumped on for many years, and now has to be treated, remediated and generally dealt with. Councils simply do not have the funding to deal with such matters. They are expected to cover the costs from their own funding, capital grants and from the rates they pick up to deal with such legacies under the present environmental programmes. Their services are taking a hit. If a plebiscite was held among members of the public about better delivery of services from local authorities, we would get a disappointing result because the local authorities do not have the funding to deliver the kind of service of which we speak. They are taken up with the staffing costs and the overheads of better local government, as well as the costs of legacy issues and EU regulations.

Local authorities are also expected to expand on their traditional role, such as the delivery of infrastructure and environmental protection. Now they are expected to engage with and promote enterprise and community initiatives, which is a very positive development as it is a way for local authorities to connect with citizens. However, limited resources are again restricting that badly. I am aware of cases in local authorities where education and heritage officers must be cut because the funding is not available to employ these people. Many of them are being employed on contract, so there is no consistency involved. Services suffer because of that.

If we are serious about local government reform we must come up with initiatives that will empower the local authority and its elected representatives. We should look at examples in other jurisdictions for policing and schools. These issues face councillors every day and they are frustrated by the fact that they have no power. Policing committees exist in pilot schemes, but these need to be rolled out in a more meaningful way for local authorities across the country.

Local government finance has been a bugbear for many years. Central government funding provides 42% of that finance, while 58% comes from business rates. The business people are coming under fierce pressure due to high annual rates. They feel that they are being overburdened and are expected to run local authorities. I feel a certain amount of sympathy for them because what is occurring is an anti-competitive practice. Businesses are suffering and that will have a long-term effect on local authority finance.

How serious are the officials in giving the reins of finance back to local authorities? Let us leave aside locally elected representatives and Oireachtas Members. My experience on a council has been that when budgets were being prepared, we witnessed the annual charade where nobody knew what amount of funding would be given by central government. The councillors and the officials were trying to agree the council budget for the following year, yet they did not know what funds would be delivered. There could be a lag of one or even two months before they knew. It is crazy to expect county and city managers and councillors to come up with a budget to run their local authority, when they do not even know what central funds are to be invested. We need to address this before we look at funding in general.

Many councillors around the country have resigned their positions since the last election. That shows that the workload has seriously increased for councillors. Those that work in other jobs and as part-time councillors have been struggling. There will be very few part-time councillors in the future. The question will then arise on the competencies councillors will be given as elected members. We need to look at whether they are to be given a proper salary or not. Councillors are often accused of attending conferences, whereas many of them are only topping up their salaries to stay in the business. Perhaps we should disband the conferences completely and give them a proper salary. In that way, the media might not take cheap shots at councillors who give valuable time to their jobs.

I agree with Deputy McCormack on the disconnect between Oireachtas Members and council executives. I am only a relatively new Member of these Houses, yet I have already noticed that there is a cooling of relations between me and some of the senior management in councils. That is a bad thing. I previously would have been on a corporate policy group and would have been involved in the policy of the council, but it should not mean that I get less attention from senior management of any council because I am now a Member of the Oireachtas. We need to look at that.

We all agree that elected members must adhere to certain ethics, so we should also look at the ethics of council staff. They have a great amount of autonomy. They have a role to play and are at the coal face for land deals, zoning and so on. We need to look at ethics on a wider scale, and not just for elected members of councils.

While there is a lot of merit in the proposal for directly elected mayors, which I would support, I am concerned about the regional proposals. We have regional authorities which have a role in the development of regional policy and planning. Members of those authorities are frustrated because they feel they are in a talking shop with no real teeth and no finance to implement their policies. They see real regional authorities in other European countries that have budgets to deliver on the policies they produce. I would be slow to engage a mayor over a regional authority, when we already have regional authorities. We should properly fund the authorities we already have and give them the resources to do what they were elected to do. They are there because of EU regulations, so we should give them the proper recognition they deserve. We could then have directly elected mayors in local authorities.

I am very interested in engaging further with this Green Paper, for that is all it is at the moment. I thank the Chairman for giving me the time to speak.

Deputy Michael Fitzpatrick

I welcome the officials today and their presentation of this Green Paper. Deputy McCormack put his finger on it when he spoke about the service given to Oireachtas Members by local authority officials since the dual mandate was ended. Since I was elected to the Dáil, we have had one meeting with our local authority in a year, which is not sufficient. The lack of communication between local authorities and Members is not helpful, and a much improved system will have to be devised to allow Members to do their duty in the manner in which they are elected to do it.

Local authority members need more support. Kildare County Council has 25 members, 23 of whom are full-time councillors. They do a very good job in difficult circumstances. Local authorities and their management structures are there to serve the people and the communities of a county or city. They must interact with the communities, listen to them and try to deliver some of the requirements of communities. In the past, I have found that where a community has an issue with a local authority about something like a road improvement or a by-pass, a barrier is put up and the local authority officials will not change their view one iota. They are determined to drive their proposal through. When officials appear at local authority meetings and come up with local development plans, county plans and other proposals, they are intent on driving these proposals through without addressing the serious concerns of local communities and locally elected members.

I served on a local authority under the old system and under the new system. I found that it worked very well but I am not so sure that the service has improved substantially under the new system, even though there are improved payments and gratuities. The new system needs to be re-evaluated and assessed.

The witnesses talked about giving more autonomy and power to local authorities. I recently realised that some of the environmental responsibilities of the local authorities have now been transferred to the EPA. I always believed that local authority members were the best people equipped to monitor environment issues but somebody has decided that the EPA is better equipped to carry out that role. I do not believe that because local authorities have elected members and are in touch with communities. I do not believe local authority members are adequately funded. Oireachtas Members have a back-up service and people to help us deliver to communities. Local authorities should have within them appointed officials who would be able to deliver a back-up service to the authority members, with secretaries and office workers to help public representatives deliver their mandate.

On the question of regular meetings between the Oireachtas Members and local authority officials, I believe it is felt that we should meet once a year, have a chat and a cup of tea and let them off, and that is their mandate finished. I do not believe this is the case, although we do have a cup of tea. It is not a sufficient way to interact with officials. While I am not sure other Deputies feel the same way, as we are in the Dáil three days a week I find it difficult to arrange an official meeting with an official of a county council at senior level because they are not available at the times we are available. Something should be done in this regard.

Elected Oireachtas Members have a contribution to make on the issues of housing, planning and environment but we have no input into the decision-making process in those areas.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

I welcome the witnesses and thank them for their presentation. While I cannot see the merit of directly-elected mayors, perhaps someone else present could point it out to me. We have a system in place whereby mayors are elected by members, who are already elected by the people. Perhaps somebody could point out the advantage of one system over the other and I would be willing to listen.

There is a suggestion that powers that were taken from councils would be handed back to council members, a suggestion I could support. In my time as a councillor, I saw how these powers were used. Councillors were voted in by the people and represented them but a manager would probably have a different agenda. I see merit in getting back the powers that were taken from members.

The role of a councillor is completely different to 15 or 20 years ago. From my time on the council, I know the workload I had to undertake without the assistance of a secretary or support. A councillor should at least have a part-time secretary, perhaps funded 50:50, or it might even be possible to have a full-time secretary. The workload of a councillor is unbelievable nowadays if he is to be successful and seen to be doing his job in a proper manner. It is an issue worth considering. I hope it will be taken into account before this issue is finalised because it is one on which I felt strongly during my time as a councillor.

On town councils, two in particular spring to mind in my constituency, namely those in Bantry and Bandon. Bandon has a population of approximately 5,000 but the town council operates with almost no budget - perhaps €30,000 per year. The town is trying to progress and grow without a budget which it could spend to advance the town and bring it to the standard its people would like. This will have to be examined with regard to towns of a certain population. This is what local government is about, namely, keeping the budget, whether it comes from development charges or otherwise, in the area of the town where the development charges are created. It is not right that when development charges are levied on developments in these towns, the money is sent back to the county council to be administered. When money is sent to the council from any town, it is very difficult to get it back for the use of that town. I would like this to be addressed.

The other issues I wished to raise have been touched on by other speakers.

Deputy Michael Fitzpatrick

I meant to refer to the role of the law agent, which was not dealt with. When an issue arises on which public representatives or the management have a particular point of view, the councils should be allowed to engage legal advice and not be tied into the local authorities' agents.

On the role of consultants, when a decision is made currently, it seems we must employ consultants and run with their decisions, and we are not able to make our own decisions. An enormous amount of money is spent on consultants for undertaking tasks which could well be done directly.

Chairman

Do the witnesses have any responses?

Mr. Des Dowling

I will ask Mr. O'Coigligh to come in on some points regarding the directly elected mayor and the approach contained in the Green Paper. He may also want to comment on a specific point raised by Deputy Fitzpatrick on the law agent, to which the Green Paper makes some reference.

It is not our place to second guess the comments made, which were based on personal experiences. By way of response to some of the comments, it is undoubtedly the case that people have looked to local government across a much wider range of activity over the past decade. Some of this, as the Deputies and Senators acknowledged, has come from international obligations and another part comes from local demand, whether it be a heritage area or otherwise. There is recognition that these are issues on which a local authority ought to be active. This brings with it a demand for additional resources in terms of staffing but also in terms of funding a variety of programmes. The Green Paper seeks to acknowledge that this is the changing context but, no more than any other area of administration, there is no easy solution to garnering the necessary resources to do all of the things one would like to be able to do.

While this is not the place for a full discussion around resources, and the Commission on Taxation is in the background in the longer term, I acknowledge that over the past eight years or so the total level of resourcing on the current side, although not capital expenditure, has more than doubled. Interestingly, the proportion of funding coming to local government has not changed hugely - by that, I mean the percentage portion provided by commercial rates, for example, is as much as it was between 1999 and last year at approximately 25% or 26%. We are of course mindful that there is competitive impact if the rate is struck at too difficult a level for business. That is an important consideration, to which Senator Coffey adverted. The proportion of funding on the current side coming from commercial rates is as much as it was eight to ten years ago, but the overall level of resources, taking into account various subsidies, grants and income from goods and services, has more than doubled in that period. That is why the range of services has been capable of expansion, as evidenced in improved library facilities, fire services and so on. However, much remains to be done. We have already referred to the importance of the interactive role of local government, particularly in the enterprise area, as we look to a more difficult economic situation.

In terms of funding, while the Green Paper does not seek to identify definitive answers, it acknowledges that on the capital side, significant change has taken place with the introduction some years ago of multi-annual budgeting. It poses the question as to whether there is scope on the current side to consider a multi-annual type of framework in order to provide greater certainty in terms of budget-setting. These are difficult issues, particularly in a situation where resources generally are more straitened and there is a reluctance to over-commit into the future. This is merely to acknowledge the difficulties of taking some of these actions and why they have not been done in the past.

There was much debate in the consultative committee on the relative powers of local authority officials, including managers and directors, and of locally elected representatives. Even within the representative associations there was a considerable diversity of views as to the effectiveness or otherwise of some of the structures that have been put in place, such as the strategic policy committees. Some people spoke favourably of their experiences while others expressed views in line with the comments made by the Senator. This touches on the role of representatives in the Dáil and Seanad in the context of the recognition of the different roles of central and local government. We cannot expect to have a local system which somehow replicates the centralised system because the respective requirements and decision-making powers are different. However, we must recognise that local representatives have a role to play. It is a question of getting the right balance between the central and the local. This is at the heart of the debate on a range of issues that arise in the Green Paper. We must devise a balance between the role of representatives in central government and those at local level.

There was no clear consensus in the consultative committee, which was representative of local government through the various bodies, on the correct balance between the powers available to councillors and to managers. Without wishing to use a stereotype, one could say that managers may be inclined to claim that councillors under-use their powers, while the latter may be inclined to say that they have little ownership over plans and budgets which are largely devised by officials. We may discuss this further when my colleague, Mr. O'Coighligh, speaks about the role of the mayor. There is an issue, as referred to by Deputy Fitzpatrick, in regard to whether those plans, budget and so on are the work of the council, by which I mean the elected council, as opposed to the council as embodied by the manager and his or her staff.

Speakers asked about town councils. This is referred to in the Green Paper. It is simply a case of listening to the variety of views that will come forward. I acknowledge the experience of Deputy Christy O'Sullivan and others in terms of the changing role of councillors. It is a matter of concern that people may decide to leave local politics because they decide it is something they are no longer prepared to do. The Green Paper acknowledges that as councillors increasingly move towards a full-time role, questions arise as to the number of councillors in individual local authorities and so on. This is an issue we must ultimately tackle but it is a difficult one. For now, it is a case of acknowledging it is there without proceeding with any contentious actions.

Mr. O'Coigligh may wish to comment on the regional issue in his overall commentary on mayors. Regional authorities find part of their origins through engagement at EU level. The Green Paper does no more than acknowledge that there is an issue traditionally over the question of county boundaries. Yet, when it comes to planning and housing issues, they cannot be tackled in isolation within any particular city or county. Whatever way we do it, we must fund a formula which successfully allows us to engage with this in a way that moves beyond a mere talking shop. Within the proposal in the Green Paper and the programme for Government to allow executive powers to mayors is a recognition that if there is to be this regional focus, there must be some edge to it through the allocation of real powers.

Mr. Fergal O’Coigligh

Deputy Ciarán Lynch is correct that the Green Paper is probably heavier on philosophy than on action. We are trying to get that philosophy right in the first instance. There is a connection between the specific issue of the functions of directly elected mayors and the question of how Oireachtas Members deal with local authorities and how councillors deal with managers and officials. There has been some commentary to the effect that not all of the changes introduced in the past decade have been to the good. However, there has undoubtedly been a flow of reform, which included the ending of the dual mandate in an attempt to focus local elected representatives on local issues and to facilitate national representatives to focus on issues of national concern. That was a difficult change which necessitated the strengthening of the management team at local government level. This might have given rise to a perception among councillors that they do not have the same level of input and control as they previously enjoyed. At the same time, we have lost the experience of Oireachtas Members from local authorities.

Given that the Oireachtas has decided there should be a break in the link between its Members and representatives at local authority level, the question arises as to whether local representatives have the appropriate powers to carry out their role as policymakers for their local area.

One issue that arises is that managers often may be perceived to be the voice and face of the local authority, whether this is correct, whether greater recognition must be given to the democratic leadership of local authorities and whether the revolving chairmanship that is elected on an annual basis succeeds in this regard. The question then arises as to whether local elected representatives have sufficient policy making powers. This is within the context that we all live within a global world and that while the local authority might be constrained by national policy, national policy also will be constrained by EU policy or even by global policy in respect of climate change. Within that mix, the question is whether local authority representatives have the correct mix of powers.

We have suggested that the local democratic strength of local authorities could be enhanced by having mayors who are elected for five years and who will have a strong mandate from the people. In a change from the position as enacted under the 2001 Act, such mayors would be given particular policy making powers in respect of proposing a development plan or the budget and perhaps in respect of policies on waste management. This would be in order that, rather than becoming the policies of the officials to which members react, such policies would become policies of the local political system with a mayor who has a mandate from the people to propose them.

Interestingly this links to the issue of the law agent, whereby councillors believe they should be entitled to receive independent legal advice. The Local Government Act 2001 allows for this, as councillors who are carrying out a reserved function may seek independent advice. However, we suggest this is the wrong philosophy. The council, as the decision-making body or the body corporate, should receive proper legal advice from within. The Government does not inform the Attorney General that it dislikes his advice and that it intends to get separate advice elsewhere. However, a suspicion exists that a law agent is answerable to the manager and will give such advice as the former wishes his or her councillors to hear.

We propose a different relationship in which the law agent is given recognition within law, which I understand is not the case at present, to be answerable to the councillors directly in respect of the powers carried out by them and not indirectly through the manager. Were mayoral powers to arise from this process, the law agent would be answerable to the mayor directly in respect of the exercise of his or her powers. As for the powers the manager carries out on a day-to-day basis as executive power, the law agent should report to him. However, the law agent should not report to the councillors indirectly through the manager but should report to them in a manner similar to the way in which the Attorney General reports to the Government, which is the executive decision-making body of the national authority. This is all connected to the philosophy of trying to strengthen the local democratic leadership through mayors and councillors.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch

I thank Mr. Dowling and his staff for the broad and detailed briefing they have provided for members. Working backwards, it is interesting to make a comparison between the law agent and the Attorney General. I wonder who would be the county manager equivalent of a Taoiseach, were one to have the type of battle that takes place in local authorities.

The issue between Oireachtas Members and local authority staff, including county and city managers, is a problem of communication flow. While much communication emanates from Deputies and Senators, as Senator Coffey noted, the difficulty pertains to information coming back. Were one to send an e-mail or place a telephone call to one's local authority, one should put a tracker device on it because weeks or months could elapse before a response was received.

If Members of these Houses encounter difficulties when making contact with directors of services or local authority staff, how can the public gain access to such people? If the clout of a Member of these Houses is insufficient to get someone to answer a telephone within the next working day, what hope have those who must deal with local authorities on a day to day basis? This must be tightened up and ultimately it pertains to improving the services. If Oireachtas Members have complaints in respect of some of the services provided by local authorities, one may deduce the public also is experiencing difficulty in this regard.

Mr. O'Coigligh mentioned the issue of the police committees. An interesting comparative occurred to me in respect of the strategic policy committees in that the police committees, when established, facilitated the inclusion of Oireachtas Members. Should the operation of strategic policy committees be re-examined? They have worked well in some local authorities but not at all well in others. While some strategic policy committees worked well, others simply regurgitated and repeated the agenda of the functional committees and no policy decision making took place. Should space be provided on strategic policy committees for Oireachtas Members to sit in without voting rights? Ultimately, Members would return to these Houses having learned of the local authorities' policy requirements in these areas and certainly would be sufficiently informed to influence policy in the Oireachtas. A direct correlation would be created. I make this suggestion off the top of my head, having drawn comparisons with the comments made by the witnesses. However, it is an interesting point and requires further examination.

I note that further public consultation will continue until the deadline of 31 July. I was critical of the delay in publication of the Green Paper, given that the programme for Government allocated six months to the task - I understand 14 December was the initial date proposed. While I do not wish to encourage further delays in this regard, it is now June and as neither June nor July are great months in which to engage in public consultation, perhaps this should be considered. As anyone will tell the witnesses, it is quite difficult to deal with local authorities in July and August. Is the deadline of 31 July rigid or is the Department open to taking submissions after that date?

Senator Paudie Coffey

I will be as brief as possible. I forgot to focus on the county development boards that were mentioned earlier. While county development boards have great potential, the present system must be either better organised or better resourced. In my experience, many State agencies and service providers participate with the local authority in this regard, which is highly positive. However, the commitment from many such agencies to county development boards leaves much to be desired in many ways. I refer to issues such as attendance or provision within their budgets for the promotion of county development board policies. Similarly, an agency that was asked to take leadership on certain issues might step back and more or less expect the local authority to do it all. In the context of the Green Paper, the Department should consider this issue. If other State agencies are required to engage or interact with local authorities, there should be some means of sanctioning them were they to fail to carry out their responsibilities or obligations. Some State agencies have a lax attitude towards county development boards. Were they more proactive in respect of their engagement, the county development boards would achieve a great deal more and would be of greater benefit to the local authority and the local government system in general.

I seek clarification. I refer to the introduction of the Better Local Government programme, the establishment of various levels of directors of services and other categories of staff, as well as the bonus schemes that exist for county and city managers and directors of services. Many councillors are not even aware that such bonus schemes exist. They consist of clear objectives for the aforementioned directors of services to achieve in any particular year. Obviously they must be approved and I understand this is done by an independent commission. However, councillors and the corporate policy groups of councils do not know what are the objectives of the directors of services. These bonuses are being paid out annually to county and city managers and to directors of services.

I seek clarification on this. Is that information accessible to councillors and Members of the Oireachtas? If it is not, which I suspect is the case, there are serious questions to be asked such as why this is the case when these are supposed to be top priorities for the management and senior management of local authorities. Then we wonder about why trust is not there between councillors and management. This is a pertinent question I would put to the delegation and perhaps it might be able to clarify it for me.

Chairman

I wish to put a few points directly to the delegation now that members have covered a lot of ground. The Green Paper on resourcing the planning system has come from the Department. Does that feed into financing local authorities? The delegation might elaborate on that.

There seems to be an inherent negative attitude to the county structure. Mr. Dowling's opening statement stated, "it also notes the loyalties to county boundaries and the absence of any consensus as to how a more rational tier of sub-county local government could be introduced", as if to say that we are a little bit irrational at the moment. That tone is coming through. Counties are different. There are counties with populations of hundreds of thousands, while others have populations of 50,000 or 70,000 people. One does not need the myriad of sub-county structures if one has a relatively small county like my own where no place is more than 20 minutes from county. One size does not fit all.

The Green Paper places heavy emphasis on the mayor but is a bit condescending to every other elected member of the council. I will give two examples. Page 60 talks about discretionary decisions on funding. It states:

Consideration could be given to providing further discretion to councillors on day-to-day matters - for example, allowing discretion for expenditure on minor environmental works, etc., without undermining the impartial function of the manager. Any such discretionary decision making must still comply with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act for public bodies to give reasons for decisions, and for decisions to be taken in a fair manner.

The first part of the first sentence sounds good but the rest of it, which refers to "minor environmental works" is belittling. The Green Paper then includes a statement that it must be done in an impartial manner, which implies that it does not believe councillors would do so. It goes on to state that councillors will be subject to the Freedom of Information Act in the event that they are allowed to make minor decisions.

Page 80 of the Green Paper refers to the forms of participative democracy. It states:

Participatory budgeting is a fiscal decision-making mechanism which devolves power to ordinary residents, who decide how to allocate an element or proportion of a local authority's budget. Residents may identify spending priorities, elect delegates to represent different communities on local authority budgeting committees, and initiate local community projects.

There is a suggestion in the Green Paper that residents, who have no elected mandate, will be given serious power. However, woe betide a councillor who might have discretion. In the effort to promote the mayor, there is a tone running through the document that belittles the other members of the council.

To return to a point I made earlier about county boundaries, page 111 of the document talks about local government administrative boundaries. It states, "the success of the county as an expression of Irish local identity has resulted in proposals to alter county administrative boundaries being politically divisive, highly emotive, and difficult to resolve". The tone implies that people who want to hold on to county boundaries are almost a difficulty getting in the Department's way in resolving how somebody else should function. There is a lack of understanding of the psyche. Everything the delegation talked about related to the identification of the citizen with the local authority. This is meaningless if one starts breaking it up into anonymous components. Even in the European Parliament, we have an area covering the east of the country. I do not even know the name of the constituency. The Department will take away the link of the people if it takes away an identifiable aspect about which everybody can talk.

The delegation referred to plebiscites. I ask it to forward to the committee the turnout in local authority elections because it would be very helpful in respect of this debate. I am sure the franchise section in the Department has this information. We know that the turnout is not nearly as high as the turnout in a general election. The Department now wants sub-county elections and plebiscites. The people want to elect us and for us to get on with it. They do not want to be bothered. We see this at the moment. They think it is our job to do these things. We can overdo this call for local democracy. If they are asked to vote many more times at local level, the turnout will be minuscule.

To put a counterpoint to some of the members here, the Oireachtas meetings with local authorities work outstandingly well in my constituency. We meet on a Friday every September. Six months later, by agreement, we get an update from that meeting from the county manager. If the council members have any objection, it is that we get a far better quality of information twice a year than they do. We end up telling them what is happening and what the manager said and is proposing. I have seen several of them. The Cathaoirleach of the council learns more by attending our briefing than he does at all his monthly meetings.

I advise the Members of the Oireachtas to get together and tell the manager what to do. Feedback goes back. We know some counties do not do it well, although others do a good job. I know some managers have told other managers what to do, such as having a snappy and good-quality presentation that tells people what is going on. It works very well in our area.

There is some basis for taking powers from councillors. Councillors had the authority to pass waste management plans a number of years ago and perhaps some counties were not supportive of that and of Government policy. They might have been controlled by parties that were not in Government and for the sake of pigheadedness, decided not to do it. We had to bring in legislation to even get some waste management plans passed because, in some case, local authorities would not do it.

I am very much in favour of the EPA. In my county, the biggest polluter is the local authority through most of the sewerage schemes, as is the case in most counties. I would not trust the local authority to monitor itself and I thank God that the EPA can tell the local authority what or what not to do in respect of the landfills we have in Laois. I am probably running counter to the views of the majority of the members here but I have seen the other side of the situation where local authorities simply fob one off. If one can call in the EPA then, all of a sudden, the local authority will act. It is a bit like the Ombudsman. We have all made representations. If one refers a case to the Ombudsman, the council officials can well change their minds so there needs to be oversight from that point of view.

One of the weaknesses for local councillors is the practice that has developed in most local authorities of changing the Cathaoirleach each year. No sooner have they become familiar with the process than they are changed and the manager knows it. If a Cathaoirleach is in place for a couple of years, by the second year they know the process, how to handle development plans and estimates and are wise to the manager. It is God's gift to the county manager to have a new Cathaoirleach every time an estimates meeting takes place because it is the Cathaoirleach's first and last time chairing such a meeting.

Removing Members of the Oireachtas from the local authorities has given much more power in practice to the county manager. The likes of us who have additional information are always in a position to challenge a manager on the floor of a council chamber whereas the ordinary elected councillor, who does not have access to the information we have, does not have the same ability because he or she does not have the level of knowledge we can pick up here.

Could the delegation respond to my question about voter turnout? I am curious to see how fond people are at local level of voting for local things. They are not as keen to get into plebiscites as we think. Do members of the delegation have any comments on this? I did not like the tone of some of the material I quoted. I accept that it is all part of a discussion process and that this is not the final word.

Mr. Des Dowling

I thank the Chairman. We take it in that way and many of the points made by members are those we must consider. It would be worth responding to several of them, particularly the question on town councils. The terminology used reflected the fact that the situation is a result of history. There is a considerable unevenness between the level of representation. The annex to the Green Paper provides information on small towns with town councils and large towns without councils. The word "rational" was used in the sense of evenness and had no bearing on council structures per se.

Members have questioned whether the Green Paper places a heavy focus on the mayor as opposed to giving equal weight to councillors. If this is the reaction, we must take it into account, as the opposite was intended. In so far as we discussed stronger local democracy, it was to recognise that local democracy means nothing unless it is built on a strong local representative element. The question is how to make this a reality. A particular focus was placed on how to generate leadership through the creation of a directly elected mayor. We did not see the two aspects as being mutually exclusive, namely, that a stronger mayor could somehow be a diminution of other council members.

In terms of the difficulties surrounding county boundaries, we take it as a given that we have such boundaries and people look to their counties in a particular way. While this was an implication in the Green Paper, perhaps we need to express it more explicitly as we approach the next phase of the process. No one could but say that, when the issue of a boundary change has arisen, it has been difficult to deal with. The Green Paper sought to take this and the variety of opinions for and against changes into account. There are recent examples of boundary changes, such as one in Limerick to facilitate the regeneration efforts. These tasks are not impossible, but they are difficult to undertake.

I will respond to a specific query made by Senator Coffey on remuneration schemes for managers and others. These are individual objectives and, as such, the information is personal to the individuals concerned--

Senator Paudie Coffey

With all due respect, the issue must be examined.

Mr. Des Dowling

--and is not available. This is the general position.

Chairman

Can Mr. Dowling inform the committee of the criteria or guidelines without going into personal details?

Senator Paudie Coffey

I have read the guidelines, which are vague. The schemes are a priority for senior staff in local authorities and, as such, are driving that particular year's objectives. We are discussing building trust and increasing co-operation, but where will the real power in local authorities be if councillors, corporate policy groups and mayors are not privy to the information? The system does not dictate the answer. It is laughable that public representatives do not have access to what is public information. If it cannot be made available to the general public, then public representatives should be given access to it because it affects their councils.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch

I will give a fair example without abusing Dáil privilege. A senior member of a local authority's bonus payment may be dependent on his or her purchasing a number of properties through a capital acquisition programme. He or she may not be choosy about the properties bought and a council may inherit a legacy of a substandard house that must be maintained. Transparency in this regard is lacking. Given that every penny in each Member's pocket is a matter of public record, there is no reason the wages and additional top-up payments, which are paid through the public purse and based on a performance indicator that is like the third secret of Fatima to unravel, of county managers and senior officials should not be in the public domain.

Mr. Des Dowling

I will not get into an argumentative position, as we recognise that there are issues of accountability in terms of the objectives of public servants. The confidentiality matter is wider than the subject under discussion, namely, information that might be seen as personal. The real question concerns the business plans agreed and approved by councils and to be delivered by managers and directors of services. We must ensure sufficient transparency and specificity in the business plans, be they housing action plans or water plans, so that managers and directors can be held accountable and councillors can be clear on what they are asking their officials to do. There should be no difficulty in ensuring transparency in the plans. I undertake to revert to the Chairman regarding election turnouts.

Chairman

It is factual information. We will conclude the meeting. The committee thanks our guests, who have provided members with an understanding of the issue in question. This will be useful when the Minister addresses the committee on this matter.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

I asked a question on the submissions.

Mr. Des Dowling

I beg the Deputy's pardon. As the committee has acknowledged, we are anxious to get the work done. The formal deadline is 31 July, which I would not like to change, but any subsequent submission would be considered.

Chairman

The committee will adjourn until Wednesday, 18 June when the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, will appear before it to discuss a recent report on the future of the electoral register and related matters. The meeting will start at 9.45 a.m., the only time at which the Minister will be available. We should all be present in Leinster House on a Wednesday morning.

The joint committee adjourned at 4.50 p.m. until 9.45 a.m. on Wednesday, 18 June 2008.