Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT, HERITAGE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 25 Nov 2008

Business of Joint Committee.

Apologies have been received from Deputy Cuffe.

The first item on the agenda concerns the minutes of the meeting on 18 November which have been circulated. Are they agreed? Agreed.

The next item is correspondence. The first item of correspondence is No. 277, a report of the 2008 annual session of the parliamentary conference on the World Trade Organisation sent by the Joint Committee on Enterprise Trade and Employment. I propose that we note the report. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 278 is a submission by a northside organisation called CROSSCARE on access to local authority housing. As we will obviously discuss the issue of local authority housing during the course of our work programme for the coming year, I propose that we hold the correspondence for consideration at that point. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 279 is a newsletter from GLOBE on environmental policy. We will note the newsletter. No. 280 is a summary sheet from the water policy summit in Brussels, which was attended by Deputies Bannon and Hogan on 5 November. Is it agreed that we will note the correspondence? Agreed. No. 281 is newsletter No. 29 on European water partnership. We will note the newsletter.

No. 282 is correspondence from the Secretary General of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government indicating the sections of the Local Government Acts which address the role and tenure of county and city managers and audit committees. We asked for this information in regard to the authority of county managers and audit committees. We can note the correspondence.

The next item is a letter from the Irish Direct Marketing Association regarding the report we produced on the register of electors which seeks to make a presentation to the committee. I suggest that we hold this matter over. I have not had time to study the matter and I do not know whether we will progress our report any further. We issued the report and it is up to the Department to respond to it. If members are familiar with the matter they should feel free to make a comment but otherwise I will return to the matter at our next meeting.

The next item is further correspondence from the Secretary General of the Department regarding dispute resolution procedures and risk assessment in local authority contracts, in other words, the guidelines book. We specifically requested this information when the Secretary General attended the committee to address contract disputes and termination difficulties. It is a comprehensive document. Do members wish to comment now or would they prefer an opportunity to consider the matter before discussing it at our next meeting? I propose that we hold the correspondence until our next meeting. We may end up merely noting it but at least members will be up to speed.

The next item on the agenda is the Mayo county development plan. We have held extensive discussions with officials from the Department and elected representatives from Mayo County Council. We gave our commitment that we will produce a report on the matter but before we put pen to paper, I want to hear members' observations.

I welcomed the meeting between the members of Mayo County Council, Department officials and the committee. It would represent a further positive step if a delegation from the county council could meet the Minister and his officials regarding the matter. We are going to compile a report but that would be the best way to progress the matter. I am aware this proposal has to come from Mayo County Council but that is my view of the best way forward.

Are we in a position to direct the Minister to meet a delegation?

I am not saying that. I am just giving my view of the matter.

No, we certainly are not in such a position. The legal position gives the Minister the power to make a directive, which he did. Everyone has agreed that the legislation does not provide for adequate consultation. We can take it for granted that we will agree on that in our report. Senator Glynn makes the somewhat different suggestion that we should take an initiative prior to completing our report.

I am just saying that we would support such an application. I accept that we lack a mandate to do anything of the kind but in view of the fact that they have met the committee and that we have a mandate on local government, we should make a suggestion. I ask for the support of the committee in that regard.

I support that proposal. I was only asking the question of whether we could direct the Minister.

We appreciate that the Minister might not be able to meet the delegation due to his legal obligations but perhaps his officials could meet the councillors to thrash out the matter.

We have met them and heard their submission. It might represent a way forward.

Is Mayo County Council requesting this meeting?

No, it is my suggestion. I have been contacted by a member of the county council in this regard. That is his view and I agree with it. That is why I make this suggestion and it is only a suggestion.

I apologise for coming in late. All of us received correspondence from Councillor Paddy McGuinness of Mayo County Council. He was concerned about some of the discussion we had on the Mayo county development plan at our last meeting, especially comments made by Deputy Cuffe on the Castlebar town plan. I was unsure where Deputy Cuffe was coming from that day but this letter clarifies it. He was talking about a totally different matter, the Castlebar town plan, which had no connection with the Mayo county development plan. We are muddying the waters and it is unfair to the Mayo delegation that this should be thrown in at this stage, especially when we are trying to arrive at some recommendations. He has confused the issue and it needs to be clarified for the proper information of the committee. If we all read that correspondence, it is clearly outlined and I hope the committee will take that view on board.

As I pointed out at the time, it is very dangerous to take what one reads in any local newspaper as gospel.

Agreed.

At our last meeting I was not aware that he had quoted from only one local newspaper, a very minor local newspaper in County Mayo compared to the others, but I am aware of it now. One should be very careful about quoting what one reads in local newspapers as fact.

I have just been handed some correspondence, including e-mails, that arrived in the last half an hour. We will proceed with our report, but in the meantime should we consider requesting the Department, whether officials or the Minister, to see if it can——

I propose that we do so.

Therefore, we agree that the committee will write to the Department asking it to discuss without prejudice——

The Mayo County Council delegation.

Yes, to meet the elected members rather than management. The problem is not——

We meet officials all the time.

Yes, the elected members.

The Department would meet the elected members of the Mayo County Council.

We will write to the Department requesting that its officials have a discussion with the elected members as an interim measure in view of the fact that we will issue a report in due course.

I take Deputy Hogan's point that the Minister may not be in a position legally to——

At least the departmental officials——

I am sure the Minister did not spend the weekend drafting the directive. I am sure it came from the officials.

Perhaps before that report is completed, the clerk could furnish us with information on the legal restraints and confines in making any recommendation or comments on the matter.

Absolutely. That is agreed about contacting the Department.

We are to request that a draft report be brought before us. Would it be during Christmas week?

I think it would be in January. There is legislation on motor tax next week and something else. At least a couple of meetings are scheduled.

Again, will the clerk to the committee contact departmental officials with a view to meeting the elected members of Mayo County Council?

Yes, we will ask the officials of the Department to meet the elected members. We will point out that this is an interim measure pending our issuing a report. Has anybody any comments they want the clerk to take on board regarding the draft report we have not yet commenced?

As a point of clarification, will we receive a report from that meeting to help us with our deliberations on our report? Where does that fit in with the environment and the committee's work?

We will ask them to report back to us on the outcome of the meeting. We will include this in the letter.

I support Deputy Coffey in that regard.

I am not clear that anything can be done at this stage. Once he has made the order, can it be amended? Is there any leeway?

There are two issues involved. We will compile a report on the general issue. We all agree that the lack of consultation in this process is a weakness in the legislation and that will be included in our report. On the County Mayo issue, they may say there is no provision in the legislation for this to happen. If so, let them tell us this. While it is not specified in the legislation, neither is it prohibited.

My main concern is that once the Minister made his order, there was no way to make submissions on it or negotiate. In respect of most decisions, there is an appeals process and there should be in this one.

That is what we want to hear. Does anybody have any observations to make on the draft report the clerk will draft? He will go through the text of the full discussion. Other than this, does anybody have any comments to make? We will take them on board.

We could see the draft first and then amend it, if necessary.

The Deputy is saying we should go ahead and produce a draft report for discussion.

The Mayo county development plan is based on population figures. The conflict has arisen because the Department is taking statistics that are not similar to the ones Mayo County Council used. Could we focus on this? Clarification is needed on which statistics are correct and most up to date. That has a major bearing on any plan.

Will we deal with the position in Castlebar and Ballina?

No, this relates to the Mayo county development plan.

We should make it clear that anywhere that has a town plan is excluded from the report, and we should list those towns.

We will specify that we are dealing specifically with the Mayo county development plan. Are there any other comments? If not, we can move on and see about drafting a report for consideration by members.

The next item on the agenda is domestic waste water treatment services, a follow on from our previous discussion.

Sitting suspended at 2.15 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.
Barr
Roinn