Victor Boyhan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am conscious of the time so I will try to be as specific as I can. I thank the witnesses for attending. This committee is about local government. Our terms of reference today are to examine the funding model. That is what we are about. It is why this committee decided to invite the various groups and witnesses. I thank Mr. O'Sullivan. It is interesting to focus on CCMA. I constantly visit its website. There is not a lot of information on it. I do not know who feeds into it. The witnesses might take that point back. Trying to understand what the CCMA is represents a difficulty for Oireachtas members. It is certainly difficult for county councillors.

I want to draw on a few points that were made. I echo what Mr. McLoughlin said because I do not necessarily agree with them. I am fed up hearing the word "savings". Savings have cost local government. They have cost communities and people in terms of service provision. It is not a matter of the bottom line in respect of savings. The opening statement referred to €586.6 million in savings were achieved but they were achieved with a lot of pain and hurt. The reality is that many communities were left disadvantaged. I am not going to give a lecture here today about the performance of local authorities in housing, value for money and waste within the services because we know the position. I was a councillor for many years in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown and I have a particular interest in governance and accountability.

Mr. McLoughlin might talk to us about the staff embargo. What is the current position on the embargo in terms of costs?

On the question of the acquisition of property, it always amazes me that in any local authority the elected members do not consent to the acquisition of real estate that the local authority management purchases on behalf of the county or the community. In section 93 cases, the local authorities have a disposal system that is put to the elected members, but the county manager does not seek and the legislation does not provide for the seeking of the approval of county councillors for the acquisition of property. A number of councillors have spoken to me where their county managers - chief executives, as they are now - have spent millions of euro of public funds on real estate without any cross-reference or checking with the local authority. When they come to fund that acquisition they must come back to the local authority, but that is after the event. It raises serious questions of accountability and governance and finance that any of the 31 local authorities can go out and incur vast public expenditure with any consent in advance. I can understand the arguments about the sensitivity of commercial transaction, being in the market and doing one's business privately, but I have concerns and I want to flag them to the association. The association might come back to me on that.

The association's representatives might also talk about the local property tax, in terms of funding. I want to say, in respect of the covers all three presentations here, that I am fundamentally against the local property tax. It is an unjust and unfair tax. It has no regard of people's capacity to pay. As I have said here from the outset, I am in favour of a local tax or council tax - call it what it is - where people get services and they pay for them. We want less ambiguity about local government finance. I accept that someone has to pay for the delivery of local services but we should make it clear. We should simplify the model. We should let people know what they are paying for and what they can legitimately expect for what they pay. I am a supporter of a local council tax. We should learn from the experiences of Britain and elsewhere, but should not get hung up on the view one cannot introduce something called a council tax. Let people know they are paying for local services, but to attach funding to the size of people's property or the valuation on people's properties is grossly unfair. As I stated in the Seanad last week, this is one of the most important issues that will face the electorate. I am determined to address it. Voters are sitting in the long grass, as am I. This is not the proper, fair and responsible way to fund local government. At some other point, we need to look at the whole model.

Turning to the AILG, I particularly welcome the association and Councillor Damien Geogheghan. I congratulate Councillor Geogheghan on his election as president. I am always keen to do business with the AILG. I myself was a member. It is a wonderful organisation. It is representative of the voices of councillors.

I note what Councillor Geogheghan said about the local property tax but I will not dwell on it. He pointed out a number of anomalies and we need to look at them. He addressed "Putting People First", which I have here. A lot in this document was never delivered on. It is timely that this whole matter was looked at again. We need a strong debate. From talking to the AILG's members throughout the country on a regular basis, local property tax and the funding of local government is important, as is the funding and support of the members who do the work. The AILG is always keen to address these issues. I welcome it and all its executive here and say that its role is very important.

The witnesses might share some of the AILG's views on a council tax because politics requires leadership. Politics requires us, both city and county councillors and Senators and Deputies to lead from the front. I would like to hear a more proactive response from the AILG on that.

Turning to Mr. Pat McLoughlin and the National Oversight and Audit Commission, NOAC, the Chairman correctly stated NOAC has no teeth. NOAC does great work but many councillors know nothing about it. That is the reality of it. Oversight is all very well but when will NOAC not only have teeth but, more importantly, be able to impose sanctions? I would like to see a greater synergy between the Local Government Audit Service, who we will have in here later, and NOAC. I would like Mr. McLoughlin's feedback on this. Time and time again, I have sought clarification on audit reports from the Local Government Audit Service. I am critical of it too. It is not appropriate that an inhouse Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government audits 31 local authorities. I have always argued the case that all local authorities should come under the scrutiny of the Comptroller and Auditory General. They should be in here and have to answer questions about their accounts. What is Mr. McLoughlin's view? What would he suggest? How could NOAC work in greater collaboration or would he like additional powers and additional resources to work closely with the Local Government Audit Service?

A number of Local Government Audit Service reports for 2015-16 were posted up on its website in the past few days but there are no sanctions. The Local Government Audit Service has singled out many local authorities here for their failure to comply with their property registers to transfer their property register assets to an IT system. For four years in succession, they have singled out one particular local authority and asked why it has not done so and the response from the chief executive in question was that the local authority does not have the resources. When one talks to chief executives, they say the Local Government Audit Service cannot sanction them, it is all a joke and all the chief executive is asked is to comment. The Local Government Audit Service does not seem to have any powers. NOAC does not seem to have any powers either. It is all a matter of scrutinising and reviews and conducting reports but it ends up being nothing.

At the end of the day, councillors have a duty. We are public representatives at all different levels. Citizens have a right to expect good corporate governance and sanction. The big problem in this area is who is sanctioned, that is, what chief executive gets removed if he or she has failed. I am not suggesting one should because it is a difficult job. I would be the first to point that out.

I am concerned about the last paragraph in Mr. McLoughlin's statement to the committee where he states, "NOAC would not have any expertise on the components of the local government funding model and how it operates in practice". Those are Mr. McLoughlin's words, not mine. That raises a concern and I would like Mr. McLoughlin to explain that to me.