Maria Bailey (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the joint committee. However, if they are directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. The opening statements submitted to the committee will be published on its website after the meeting.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

At the request of the broadcasting and recording services, delegates and those in the Visitors Gallery are requested to ensure that for the duration of the meeting their mobile phones are turned off completely or switched to airplane, safe of flight mode, depending on the device used.

The committee is pleased to have an opportunity to discuss local economic and community plans. The purpose of such a plan is to promote local and community development in the relevant local authority area through a more co-ordinated and collaborative approach to planning and service delivery. The plan is a key mechanism for action in respect of the national Action Plan for Jobs and other relevant Government policies and strategies. From the County and City Management Association I warmly welcome Mr. Paul Reid, Mr. Pat Dowling and Ms Dorothy Clarke; and from the Association of Irish Local Government Mr. Pat Daly, president; Mr. Damien Geoghegan, Mr. Paul Taylor, Mr. Liam Kenny, Mr. Tom Moylan and Mr. John Crowe. I thank everyone for attending.

We have the statements and can take them as read, however if delegates want to read them, it is no problem. The purpose is more about interaction and finding out how these plans are working in local authorities throughout the country. I invite Mr. Paul Reid to make a presentation on behalf of the County and City Management Association, CCMA.

Mr. Paul Reid:

On behalf of the CCMA I thank the committee for the opportunity to present on the local economic and community plans. My name is Paul Reid, chief executive of Fingal County Council. I am accompanied by my colleagues, Mr. Pat Dowling, chief executive of Clare County Council, and Ms Dorothy Clarke, director of services, Sligo County Council. We are pleased to present alongside our colleagues with the Association of Irish Local Government.

Allow me first to present some key data on the local economic and community plans. There are 31 local economic and community plans, all prepared by the local community and development committees, LCDCs, adopted by the elected members and chambers and submitted to the Minister for Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government. The 31 local economic and community plans commit to over 5,000 actions in the areas of economic development, social inclusion, community development, health and well-being, rural and urban regeneration, investment and infrastructure. Over 1,700 organisations are mobilised locally to deliver these actions. These include: Government Departments; State agencies such as IDA, Enterprise Ireland and the HSE; development organisations; and a wide range of local community and voluntary groups.

Through the public participation networks, PPNs, the LCDCs provide a mechanism by which the community and voluntary sector can meaningfully participate in local development. This recognises the role they play in delivering economic, social and environmental initiatives and implementing the particular actions of the local community and economic plans. There are 11,137 community and voluntary group on PPNs throughout Ireland. Already, the local economic and community plans provide a framework by which significant investment will be made. For example, the LCDC is the main approval body for the Leader programme investing over €191 million in local areas between 2014 and 2020. The social inclusion community activation programme, SICAP, will see €37.4 million invested in social inclusion programmes throughout the country in 2016. The LCDC is also seen as the decision body in the Border counties for the Ireland–Northern Ireland PEACE programme.

The remainder of the presentation provides a brief overview of the key success factors that are necessary to deliver the objectives and actions set out in the local economic and community plans. Local authorities have always played a central role in the democratic, social, economic and cultural development of local areas. City and county councils throughout Ireland have been providing infrastructure, amenities and services designed to improve local areas as places to live, visit and invest. Since the roll-out of better local government in the late 1990s, the local government sector has been playing a central role in co-ordinating partnerships to foster local and regional development. The county and city development boards, CDBs, represented an effort to co-ordinate the activities of State agencies, local development companies and the community and voluntary sector to deliver integrated county and city strategies.

An independent review of the CDBs found they were "the key co-ordinating body at local level". The recommendations of the review were "designed to develop and strengthen the CDBs and to realise their potential to make a significant contribution to the key challenge of effective local service delivery". In 2010, the local government efficiency review group, LGER, also recommended strengthening the role of CDBs. This was accepted by the Government which, in 2012, published An Action Programme for Local Government - Putting People First. The policy stated that "local government will be the main vehicle of governance and public service at local level, leading economic, social and community development". It subsequently emerged as the Local Government Reform Act 2014.

The remit of local authorities has been broadened, with a strengthened role in local community, economic and cultural development. From an economic perspective, local authorities play a key role in putting in place initiatives to stimulate the local economy and support business in creating employment. We work with key State agencies such as the IDA in attracting foreign direct investment opportunities into Ireland. For Irish indigenous business, we put in place many supports to enable their organisations to grow. Since 2014, the Local Enterprise Offices, LEOs, play a pivotal role in supporting entrepreneurs, start-up businesses, people with a business idea and helping small business to scale up. Indeed the LEOs are now an integral part of the local authority providing businesses with a broader range of supports at a local level. The LEOs are a one-stop-shop providing enterprise advice, coaching, management development and expertise on routes to new markets. In addition, the financial supports available to eligible businesses have proven to be a critical element in the success stories of many of Ireland's latest generation of high performing start ups. Because there is a LEO in every county, the service can help bring greater balance to Ireland’s economic recovery.

We are playing a key role supporting the digital society and the roll-out of the national broadband plan. Local authorities are instrumental in the delivery of the tourism action plan, specifically the development and marketing of the new tourism brands and the promotion of new tourist attractions at a local level. Our work in tourism can be of particular benefit to local communities throughout the country. While job creation has been steadily improving, the unemployment rate remains at 7.5% and is considerably higher in some regions. Tourism offers two key benefits in this regard. First, it can provide economic activity across all of our regions and rural areas, whereas many other growing sectors are concentrated in Dublin and our other cities. Second, given that it is labour intensive, it can provide a substantial level of employment across communities and at all skill levels.

We will continue to support our national tourism agencies in developing new visitor attractions and growing visitor numbers throughout Ireland. The sector delivered a series of top-class events to commemorate the centenary of 1916. As the only sector with an administrative and democratic infrastructure at a local level, and with a track record of agility and service delivery, we envisage and look forward to a continued expansion of the role of local authorities in the future.

The Local Government Reform Act 2014 provided local authorities with the legislative framework to underpin this co-ordinating role. The Act provided for the establishment of the LCDCs and the preparation of local economic and community plans. Two key provisions in the Act strengthen the ability of the LCDCs to deliver the actions set out in the various plans.

First, the strength of the LCDC lies in its composition. The membership of the LCDC is critical to the delivery of the actions set out in the local economic and community plans. The Act clearly provides for a role for the local elected members and the chief executive of the city or county council, the voluntary sector, community groups and agencies that are central to the delivery of public services in local areas. The combination of political and community leadership and agency involvement means the LCDC is best positioned to mobilise relevant groups to deliver the local economic and community plan. Importantly, the LCDCs are configured so they can act as local action groups, LAGs, for EU funded programmes. This improves the scope to resource the actions set out in the local economic and community plans as evidenced by the Leader and PEACE programmes.

Second, the Act clearly states that public bodies must cooperate with the LCDCs. This has been very significant and helpful. There was no such obligation for public bodies to co-operate with the CDBs in the past. The obligation for public bodies to cooperate with the LCDCs greatly strengthens the potential to deliver agreed actions that are ultimately designed to improve the economic, social or cultural fabric of local areas.

Another critical success factor to the delivery of the objectives of the local economic and community plans is that a robust approach was taken to their preparation, which involved: the establishment of advisory steering groups in each local authority; evidence based objectives that involved in-depth socio-economic profiling and analysis of local areas; extensive public consultation; and engagement with the elected members through the strategic policy committees, SPCs, and the municipal districts. Adoption of final draft of the plan was a reserved function. Finally, the plans were submitted to the Minister and have recently been published. This ensured the plans were evidence based and informed by a combination of good practice, local insight, political leadership and community engagement.

The preparation of 31 separate local economic and community plans poses a question. How do we avoid duplication and ensure collaboration for the greater good? The link between the LCDC and the local authority is essential to ensure that the benefits of implementation of over 5,000 actions are felt at local, regional and national levels. Locally, the plans must be consistent with the county or city development plans. Regionally, the local economic and community plans are being used by the regional assemblies to inform the regional economic spatial strategies. In addition, local authorities, in partnership with the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, are playing a central role in the co-ordination and delivery of the regional action plans for jobs.

The plans will inform the national planning framework and are consistent with Enterprise 2025, the Government’s enterprise policy. Importantly, the plans were informed by a range of European Union and national policies and strategies, including the findings of the Commission for Economic Development of Rural Areas. Thus, the local economic and community plans, LECPs, play a key role in regional and national planning and development.

Accepting that the local community development committees, LCDCs, were only recently established and the LECPs were launched in September this year, the CCMA makes the following recommendations designed to ensure that the actions of the LECPs can be delivered. First, where appropriate, relevant EU or Exchequer-funded programmes should be channelled through the LCDC to ensure they are consistent with the vision and objectives of the local economic and community plans. Second, there should be consistency in the approach taken to the role of the LCDCs in the implementation of EU and Exchequer-funded programmes in all local areas. Third, the administration of the LCDCs should be properly resourced and supported. Finally, we should ensure there is robust evidence of the success or otherwise of the LCDC in implementing the LECPs.

We propose that the CCMA engage with the Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government to prepare a suitable methodology for the monitoring, evaluation and reporting of the plans. The CCMA will continue to engage meaningfully with the Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government and other relevant Departments to identify the most appropriate means of delivering public services at a local level.

The CCMA is convinced that the delivery of over 5,000 actions set out in the 31 local economic and community plans will improve the quality of lives of citizens at a local level. This will ultimately strengthen regional and national development. The ability to deliver these actions lies in the membership the LCDCs and their links to the local government sector both politically and administratively. It is important that the actions are resourced. The CCMA will work with Departments and State agencies to seek mechanisms by which the actions of the LECPs can be funded through LCDCs. The LCDCs provide the mechanism for communities, development organisations, State agencies and Departments to work together to achieve shared objectives, improving the quality of life of citizens throughout Ireland. I understand that I have used many acronyms and we look forward to answering any questions members may wish to pose.

Maria Bailey (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are counting the acronyms.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It will add significantly to our Christmas party funds. It is a euro for every acronym. We are not joking.

Mr. Pat Daly:

It is very rare that we meet at a higher level than managers or directors of services. We can see around the table we are a little bit higher today. I wish the committee good morning and we hope we can be of assistance to them in its deliberations. I am Pat Daly, a member of Clare County Council and president of the Association of Irish Local Government. I am accompanied by our vice president, Councillor Damien Geoghegan, a member of Waterford City and County Council; our past president, Councillor John Crowe, another banner man; and Councillor Paul Taylor from Sligo County Council, a member of our executive committee. We are accompanied by our complement of two staff who are directors, Mr. Liam Kenny and Mr. Tom Moylan.

The association is essentially a network of the county and city councillors in the 31 local authorities in the State. Networking, training, and communication are our core missions. Our association has had a busy few weeks heavily engaged in training programmes throughout the country for councillors in the currently topical issues of housing and planning. Arising from this commitment we have had less time than we would have liked to prepare a response to your invitation. I am sure members will understand, especially those Deputies and Senators who are present, the importance of having a well-educated and knowledgeable body of councillors.

To return to the subject of the committee's inquiry, the 31 local authorities and local community development committees published their local economic community plans just eight weeks ago. I have the County Clare version and present it to the Chairman. Much work has been put into it. The plans and their follow-up actions represent a community and economic development framework that will see delivery through the county and city councils, the local economic and development committee and various local development agencies of considerable supports across a wide mosaic of areas, including social, cultural, educational, environmental and economic issues. The plans provide ambitious and one might even say aspirational objectives for their relevant county and city areas. The intention is that the plans will be a living and workable strategy and there are mechanisms in place to ensure they will be monitored and appraised on a continuous basis.

The plans were the product of a long and complex consultation process in which no stone was left unturned in endeavouring to engage with the public and with sectoral groups of all kinds so as to shape a vision for the county and city which would be truly inclusive and comprehensive. The consultation process was informed by research papers and studies compiled by the county and city councils, local third-level colleges and by professionals with specialist knowledge of demographics, local economies and social indicators. At this stage, we must acknowledge the commitment and hard work through the many hours of consultation of councillors, council staff, the boards and the staff of local development bodies, members of the public and voluntary bodies of all kinds. It is to their credit that an intense level of engagement was sustained through long periods of consultation, negotiation, analysis, drafting and finalisation.

Through the various stages of consultation, groups were brought into contact, which, in a purposeful project, broke down any barriers of uncertainty or hesitation. For example, it was understandable that some community development practitioners were hesitant about engaging with the local authorities, seeing them as being too bound up with statutory and bureaucratic processes to have the empathy needed for community development. However, as a body representing county and city councillors, we have maintained since the LCDCs were first mooted that councils have been in the business of community development since they were established more than a century ago. Before communities can think of developing, they need a certain basic infrastructure. The county and city councils, through their long-established statutory responsibilities of providing amenities and facilities of all kinds, of maintaining roads and pavements, of putting in place proper sanitation, of providing housing and accommodation, fashioned and shaped the very sinews of community development.

The contribution of county and city councils has not been limited to what might be called the hardware services, such as roads and sanitation. Councils have also been involved for decades with providing libraries, recreation and cultural facilities. In that sense, councils have provided the physical and social foundations on which communities can thrive. I could say without hesitation that we, as councillors, are the ultimate community representatives, responding, as we do, on a daily basis to a multitude of requests and issues brought to us by our neighbours, members of our communities and representatives of business and economic life in our localities. We must be experts in planning, housing, finance and so many other issues.

That said, we also recognise that the community development bodies that evolved from the 1970s onwards opened up new ways at looking at the concept of community. They championed an approach that was flexible and inclusive in the way it brought communities together. The community development approach had a particular strength in linking groups that were marginalised into the process of building and strengthening peoples' sense of belonging to the place in which they live out their lives. The plans integrate as part of mainstream county strategy the issues affecting groups such as young people, single-parent families and new residents from other countries. Were it not for the inclusive nature of the process that informed the plans, such groups would be left behind in the general social and economic evolution of communities.

What we see then in the local community and development plans is a coming together of two traditions of public life, one with a democratically elected council and a strong track record of delivering the infrastructural underpinning of community life, and the other, the community development approach, more recently established, drawing from the practices of participatory democracy, with a capacity to bring with it the enthusiasm and energy that exists both generally and within specific groups in the communities.

The local community and development plans are today taking their first steps on what will be a long road. Eight weeks into their formal existence is perhaps a premature stage at which to form judgments on their likely success. We live in a rapidly changing world. Since the closure of the consultation phase of the plans earlier this year events have taken place that could not have been envisaged 12 months ago. Thus, the assumptions, ambitions and aspirations which drive the plans will have to be followed up in a way which is adaptable yet tenacious if their objectives are to be fulfilled. As I said, it is a five-year plan which is at a very early stage.

Maria Bailey (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Daly for his opening statement.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. As a councillor, I was a member of the local community economic development committee and, as such, I was involved in the production of the plan for South Dublin County Council and in the establishment of the public participation network. I would like to make some observations on the process and to hear the witnesses' responses in that regard. Time permitting a second round of questions, I may ask questions on the planning legislation currently before the Seanad and which will be dealt with next week by the Dáil.

South Dublin County Council put a lot of effort into the development of the local economic and community development plan. The officials, councillors, statutory agencies and community and voluntary sector did a lot of work in that regard. However, I am not convinced that plan has added any value to the work of the local authority or the statutory agencies in the community and voluntary sector. If asked, most people involved in the process would probably have a similar opinion. That is not to suggest it is not a good plan or that the actions proposed therein are not good actions. I am not convinced that it has done what people thought it would do. I would be interested to hear the experiences of the local authority in that regard.

Another issue of concern was that tenders under the social inclusion community activation plan, SICAP, were invited before the plan was developed. I would have thought that the priority would have been to have the plans in place first, with bids under the tender process being on the basis of meeting the requirements of the plans. As it happened, in terms of the first half of the six-year tender, bidders were blind to the plan that was subsequently developed. How do the witnesses envisage the process will work in respect of the second round of tenders?

I had a number of significant concerns regarding the change from community development programme funding to community activation programme funding because that appeared to me to represent centralisation and because many organisations that previously would have bid for funding directly to the Department had to choose to tender in conjunction with a local partnership or step out of that process and seek funding elsewhere. For example, in regard to the Traveller development programmes, the women support networks and other small community development projects took the decision to step out of that process and to maintain their independence. Some of them obtained funding from the Department of Justice and Equality and elsewhere but some did not. I would welcome the witnesses' reflections on whether that change led to a centralisation of funding. I am sure the witnesses are aware of the huge problems this caused in Dublin, where local partnership boards were essentially set against each other to bid for funding with significant impacts. I would welcome the reflections of the witnesses on whether that was a good or bad thing. A huge concern for many of us is that while in the first round, by and large partnership boards secured funding, in terms of the second round of tenders, there is nothing stopping large private sector organisations or other large voluntary sector organisations from here or elsewhere bidding for that funding. This concern was also expressed in relation to the first round of tenders but it did not transpire. Is that a concern now? Is it something we need to key an eye out for?

The most fundamental shift in the social inclusion community activation programme was the shift from grant aid to tendering. That is a profound change in the relationship between central and local government and the service delivery agencies. Tendering places a very different set of responsibilities on organisations than does grant aid. There was a very strong lobby, of which I am very supportive, for consideration to be given to a return to direct aid by the Department, similar to other Departments and the HSE.

On the public participation networks, I believe these are a really good idea. On paper, it appears they could work. Is there any evidence that the public participation networks have increased participation of the different sectoral organisations that exist, as per the objective of their establishment? While the recommendations made are fine, given the change in the architecture of the funding mechanism and the organisation of the delivery of programmes funded under this stream was so profound, is there a need for an independent review of a select number of local authorities that are running these programmes under the new structures to see how effective they have been, what lessons can be learned and so on such that in the next round of tenders any issues or concerns that arose in the first two to three years would be ironed out and improved? Perhaps that is an issue which the committee might examine in the context of its deliberations on this issue and any recommendations in that regard to be made to the Minister.

Pat Casey (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

By way of background, I served on a local enterprise board and two Leader programmes as part of the previous cohesion process. I was also chairman of a local community development committee and of the economic and enterprise special purpose committee, SPC, at local level. As such, I have a fair knowledge of what is going on. While I buy into the high level objectives of the local economic and community plan, LECP, I have major reservations about what is coming down the road. Two key components in terms of delivery of that plan are the Leader and SICAP programmes. The more that is implemented under Putting People First, the more people are being left behind. It is regrettable that the Department is not represented here today to hear what is being said. I believe that the stumbling block in the roll-out of many of these programmes is the obsession with gathering data, crunching numbers and duplication of decisions. The level of bureaucracy in this area is incredible and detrimental to communities and our people, many of whom are being left behind in this process. This process was supposed to empower communities but it does the opposite.

The aim of the social inclusion community activation programme, SICAP, is to help young people who are long-term unemployed and disadvantaged groups. The staff of SICAP are doing nothing but number crunching and box-ticking such that in my opinion SICAP should stand for "statistics informed computerised application process". As I said, people are being left behind. Often applications from vulnerable communities seeking only €100 for a piece of timber for a men's shed are being lost in the bureaucracy of this process.

In regard to the Leader programme, Leader worked with communities throughout the process of applications to delivery of the programme. My understanding is that under the new local action group, LAG, communities will have to go through the planning and procurement processes before being able to submit an application for funding. How can we ask communities to commit to that expense without knowing the likely outcome of a project application? I believe the problem lies with the Department and officials therein who do not understand how communities work. These people need to engage with communities to understand where they and individuals are coming from. These communities and individuals are doing the work of the State and all we are doing is putting obstacles in their way.

I was chairman of the local community development committee when it was established. Every week the Department issued new guidelines and protocols on how it was to be rolled out.

I recall having to sit down with the director of services to try to find out who was coming to the meeting and, in terms of putting a jersey on them, whether they were from the public or the private sector. When it came to the decision, the private sector had to have the majority. When we came to deciding whether to opt for one or two lots for site cap, we ended up with three people making that decision because of the bureaucracy involved in this process.

Most of the Leader companies bought in to putting people first and said that this was the way to go in the future, that they must work with the local authorities and engage with the local community development committees, LCDs. They have done that to their detriment. Not one of them is up and running, but three Leader companies decided not to go down that road. They went out on their own and are rolling out community projects as we speak, and we have not even started.

Previously, Leader companies reported to the Department. Leader companies now report to the council, the council reports to Pobal and Pobal is reporting to the Department. Administration work that is being done currently and that has been done for the past year and a half is being duplicated or quadruplicated on certain occasions. Work done by administrative staff in the local development companies is being checked by the council. That is being sent to Pobal, which checks it, and then it goes to the Department. What is going on in this State at the moment is madness. We have left people and communities behind. We can forget about empowering communities if we carry on in this way.

My argument is not against either of the presentations made. We need the Department to get real, cop on and deal with people at ground level.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I fully concur with the two previous speakers. I welcome the representatives of the Association of Irish Local Government and the County and City Managers Association, CCMA. I criticised the County and City Managers Association a long time ago but I am glad to see its representatives here today. I am glad to see both groups in the room and I thank them for their presentations.

I am a former county councillor in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown for many years. I was also involved in the local enterprise board, which in our case was Venture Point. What is coming through from the previous speakers and generally from people I spoke to in the days leading up to this meeting was that simple word "bureaucracy". Deputy Casey referred to it in his contribution. It is interesting that Mr. Reid stated in his submission that the remit of local authorities has been broadened, with a strengthened role in local community, economic and cultural development but there is a distinction between the executive of a local authority and the elected members of a local authority, and we need to tease that out.

When all of this was discussed initially there was a genuine concern among elected members of county councils in that they have vast local knowledge. Many local councillors are immersed in the businesses of their communities outside of their political role. Many local councillors were involved in community development. Many people came into politics and local government through community development. That is what brought them on to the next stage in that they felt they needed to get into the centre of politics to influence change for the betterment of the community, their neighbours, the people who live among them and themselves. Clearly, that is a vital motivation for many people and it is one I would encourage and support.

The representatives of the County and City Management Association spoke about the roll out of broadband and the digital society, all of which is important. It is all happening too slowly for many people. I am based in Dublin. We are all here today in Dublin. It is very Dublin centric but if one goes a few miles out of Dublin, it is a different scenario in terms of economics, the digital hub, connectivity and the Internet. One cannot physically get access. Someone spoke to me the other day about trying to get access to An Bord Pleanála, the national appeals board website. They could not access it in a community which is actually Kildare. There are issues in that regard that need to be addressed.

I will get straight to the point. The witnesses have come in here with four recommendations to the committee. I will deal with the third one first. They recommend that the administration of the LCDCs be properly resourced and supported. Will they tease that out? I take it from that that they are not properly resourced and supported or perhaps that is presumptuous of me. However, the witnesses have made the statement and they should tease it out.

The witnesses represent a very powerful body in terms of local government. It is important that they make these statements but we need to hear them in a bigger forum. There is a tendency to believe, and this is my personal view as a former member of a local authority, that the County and City Managers Association has a slightly cosy arrangement in that they tend to comply. There is a close synergy, understandably, with the officials in the Customs House but the public, and particularly the councillors, do not quite understand that synergy. Minutes of the association's meetings are not circulated to local authorities. I do not see them on their website. I am not fully aware, nor are other councillors, of the finer detail of the policy that it agrees. We know that local authorities fund the witnesses' organisation. That funding comes out of revenue from local authorities. I do not expect a full answer from the witnesses today but I will leave them with that question. How can their organisation communicate better with the 31 local councils in this country? They need to know their stance, policy and the decisions they have reached with the officials in the Customs House.

Another recommendation is the proposal that the CCMA should engage with the Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government to prepare a suitable methodology for the monitoring and evaluation of the plans. Will they tease that out? What are they saying? They are proposing it so it does not exist. Why does it not exist? Do the witnesses have a timeframe for when it will exist? That is very important.

To go back to the issue of resources, the witnesses tell us there are 537 commitments that are key deliverables. Clearly, those are divided among 31 councils to a greater or lesser extent and it is important they deliver. There should be some pilot scheme involving the local government auditing service or some arm of that organisation randomly selecting two or three local authorities and monitoring them to see how they are performing and delivering. That would be a key start. In fact, I intend to suggest that to someone in the Department. The Minister or somebody else should consider doing that at some stage to be helpful, not to be critical. Three local authorities could be randomly selected to see whether these key objectives are being prioritised because that will be an issue of concern. We cannot continue to support something that does not work. In any meaningful consultation regarding the process, the witnesses might engage with the elected members, the county councillors.

I want to address one or two issues regarding the Association of Irish Local Government. We have to be careful. As a former member of a local authority I am aware that local councils promote partnership. It is important that local councils are seen to be in partnership with entrepreneurs and community development. As I have said previously, many councillors have come through the community development or co-operative sectors or representative bodies of industry, trade and agriculture. They know and work well with those established organisations. However, this is a sea change. We have to let it bed down. We have to give it time, but we have to monitor it also. The concern I am hearing from elected members, which is understandable, is about their role. There is an annual report to the local authority but what happens to that? How are local authority members engaging with the report? If I were to read five or six local authority reports in the future, I would like to think there was a record of engagement by elected members and councillors regarding the statutory reports that should follow through on this process coming to the council. We need to give it time. It is easy to criticise something. Nobody likes the perception that they are losing control or power. Politicians are of all hues but they are elected. They have a democratic mandate. That is very important but I am not sure if it is being reflected in the way this scheme is going ahead. It may need tweaking to have full regard to the democratic mandate elected councillors have across the country.

It is one that should be acknowledged. It should not just be lip service. It should be clearly stated. It is an area in which I believe there is a weakness that needs to be addressed. I thank both groups for meeting the committee today.

Paudie Coffey (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will directly follow on from what Senator Boyhan has said in recognising the primacy of the elected mandate of public representatives. However, I believe we cannot have it both ways. I disagree with the Senator on one aspect. We heard the previous speakers arguing about the system that existed previous to the current system. Elected members may have been members of those boards, but they certainly were not in a position to be fully endorsed as elected members. It was community groups and Leader groups that put forward their projects, had them approved and subsequently spent what was substantial public funding. I recognise that many of the projects were excellent. However, if we are to be honest about it, many of the projects were poor as well. There was a lot of money wasted in many Leader projects in which governance possibly was not as it should have been. Improvement was needed and a greater recognition of the elected mandate of councillors was needed.

The new system certainly brings that to the fore, in which a strategic plan is developed and subsequently and finally endorsed by the elected members of a council. I believe that is where the accountability will now come into play. I understand and accept the arguments made around bringing in more bureaucracy. That is something I would say to the County and City Management Association, CCMA. The new programme has to be as accessible as possible. A criticism I would have of the previous system also is that the community groups with the greatest capacity that were best at applying always received the best funding. The ones with the least capacity that were possibly the most disadvantaged and did not have the capacity to make proposals for programmes received the least funding. That regurgitated itself over many years. Automatically, the successful communities repeatedly had successful programmes while the rest were left behind. If we are honest about it, that is the way it has been.

The proposals before us have the potential to address these deficits. However, I would have concerns about the bureaucracy and I urge the CCMA to work with the elected members to ensure the funding is prioritised to the areas in most need. The butter cannot be spread too thinly. I recognise that. With regard to programmes and strategies, areas and localities that need this injection and lift will have to be identified initially. I urge the CCMA to work with local councillors in this regard. I also encourage the AILG to give this committee, through the chairmanship of the Cathaoirleach, feedback on how it feels the programme is working, where the deficits are and whether there is too much bureaucracy. I believe we should revisit this in six months or a year to evaluate the success of this programme. The best people to do that are the people before the committee. We can then take that argument to the Department with responsibility for the environment, as members have said.

It is welcome that we have the CCMA together with the leadership of the councillors of the AILG and their executive here today to tease out some of the issues as we face into new programmes. I have no doubt there will be challenges ahead. As a former councillor and former chairperson of a county development board for many years myself, there is one thing that I would pick up on. During that time, I saw agencies, councillors and council executives coming together, formulating strategic plans for their relevant area and prioritising actions that had high aspirations and that were going to deliver. Unfortunately, there was no obligation on the State agencies or Departments to engage actively with those county development plans. I found it extremely frustrating when I saw excellent work being done to formulate the plans, with excellent actions and priorities put in place, but no follow through because there was no obligation to do so. Unfortunately, much of it was lip service.

What I would say in favour of the current system being implemented is that there is an obligation on State agencies to engage actively. I would be interested to hear from the CCMA whether any of that engagement has taken place to date, how serious the agencies are about it and whether they understand that they now have an obligation to engage and take action as part of these plans. Those are the critical areas we need to focus on. I certainly believe this is a step forward in recognising the mandate of elected councillors. I believe they will have a greater role and power in endorsing and improving plans and ensuring funding is spent in the most efficient and best way possible to lift all localities, not just those that are best at applying for it.

Barry Cowen (Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not want to go on too long. Suffice it to say that there is much merit in what has been said by previous speakers. I wish to pick up on Senator Coffey's points, with which I agree wholeheartedly. We are at a critical juncture in the future distribution of funds to these plans. I think in particular of the flight from many rural areas, the change in retail habits, the traffic management challenges faced by some larger towns, the way people do their business, residential issues, problems we have in housing, how we seek to repopulate towns and villages and whatnot.

My major difficulty is with the hierarchy of plans, the primacy of the county development plan and the input that is made by local authority members, who are of the community and for the community, as other speakers have rightly said. That should be the bible and the blueprint for all other development, initiatives, help and assistance in conjunction with these organisations which do much good work. However, an awful lot of money has been distributed. Some members and councillors, who are the ones who are most accountable, feel neglected, left out and do not feel they have the input into this that they should have, despite the fact, as Deputy Coffey said, that they have various representational roles on some of these committees. Community enterprise and development is not necessarily the wholehearted remit of individual organisations which have evolved. These guys build their own power base and end up in competition with the very ones who put them in place. There are development plans, local area plans, regional plans, spatial strategies and Government policy. Trying to tie all of those together can become very difficult. The hierarchy of plans needs to be set out clearly and concisely.

If the county development plan is to get the role it deserves and is to be ensured that role and primacy, better help and assistance has to be given to the local authority members to ensure that they are reflecting the views, aspirations and will of those they represent. While well-meant and well-intentioned, the executive has at it disposal huge expertise in engineering, economic and financial assistance. That same expertise is not available to the local authority members, who feel conflicted. In the event of the local authority members not being able to provide alternatives without the professional expertise, they are exposed in the future to issues arising out of that development plan or some of the initiatives contained within it. I spoke about this before.

The county development plan is a very consultative process, some would say far too much so, especially in the context of the position we find ourselves in now in trying to deal with a housing crisis, for example. I believe it is incumbent on the Department and the Minister to ensure that when the county development plans are being devised, funding is made available to local authorities to ensure the members have the relevant expertise available to them that may offer an opinion contrary to that of the executive in order that there can be greater ownership of the development plan thereafter and, ultimately, that those who base their own plans thereafter on the primacy of that plan can ensure that accountability is paramount and the ownership is with the membership and, by association, with those they represent.

That is my tuppence worth. The primacy of the county development plan and its associated local development plans is very important. It must assume its rightful place at the top of the hierarchy with regard to any development that ensues. Any plans initiated by any of these other organisations or groups, such as Leader or local development companies, community groups and whatnot, must work to the aims and objectives that are contained within the development plan, which is more representative than any other that is brought to bear.

Jennifer Murnane O'Connor (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the witnesses. It is great to see them all together. It is like everything: we are all working for the improvement of our own counties and towns, which is so important. I have to agree with the previous speakers. The loss of town councils has been a disaster, in particular in places like my home town of Carlow. To me, it has been the nail in the coffin of most local authorities because funding has been cut across the board and everybody is losing out. Councillors themselves have experienced cuts while having larger areas to cover. In the past, one had nine or ten town councillors for a town and then one had one's county councillors. We do not have that in most areas and I cannot express the extent to which that has devastated areas.

I sat on a Leader board for years and it did good work in the sense that a lot of community groups received funding. However, the biggest issue, which continues to be an issue with LCDCs and Leader companies, was that a lot of community groups could not apply for funding because they could not come up with the matching funds required. It was not a requirement to match the full level of funding, but groups still had to find money. It is a massive issue. My home town of Carlow had what were previously known as disadvantaged RAPID areas and they need to come back. I sat on an LCDC for the two years before I became a Senator. Again, it is only open to the bigger groups which have the funding whereas RAPID and disadvantaged areas cannot come up with the funding. Applying for these projects is causing them hassle, but they are the ones that need the funding. These are the ones the witnesses need to look at as a priority. It is the disadvantaged and RAPID areas. I understand there is consideration of bringing them back into play. It is of the utmost importance.

I refer to the staffing of LCDCs. I worked with LCDCs and then I worked with the LEO system, which is working well with local authorities. However, the IDA is not coming down to rural counties. It is visiting Dublin, Cork and the other cities. I am all for working with Dublin and the bigger cities, but one cannot forget the rural counties. We must ensure that the IDA comes down to visit Carlow, Kilkenny, Laois and other such areas. We are there but we are not getting the same priority. That has to come from development plans and everyone working together. It is not based on looking at Dublin and putting things there. We had one official visit to Carlow from the IDA last year and we might have had one or two informal ones. That is unacceptable. We are 50 minutes from Dublin and we have a great base so why are we not being promoted in all this? These are the things with which I take issue.

The PPNs are working well but I note the bureaucracy. I sat on the LCDC for two years and it was a nightmare. Every month, I went to a meeting and it was paperwork, paperwork, paperwork. Going forward, it will be another year or two before any projects that come through, which I hope they will, are up and running. We advertised recently in my own area for certain community groups to apply for funding and all the notice they got was two weeks in the local paper. I nearly got a heart attack when I read it and had to ring straight away. They were only given two weeks. The witnesses can imagine having to get a project ready, prepare a full plan and put in an application in two weeks. That is unacceptable. While a little bit of extra time was granted in the end, one has to look at all the areas. We have to look at how long community groups are being given to apply. If it is two weeks, it is unacceptable. They need to be given at least two to three months.

We also need to know who exactly they are meeting. I am still learning, as is the LCDC. Who does one meet and how are community groups getting to know the information? I am a firm believer that a lack of information is the biggest issue we face. A lot of smaller groups are not getting the proper information. It is like anything else. It is all about promotion. I was at a meeting three months ago which had to do with the LCDC and there were a good number of people in attendance. However, a lot of them did not know what they were entitled to and how to apply. Going forward with LCDCs, PPNs and the different community groups, we are going to have to look at putting an improved process in place.

I have a plan going forward for the Tullow Road area in Carlow which has always been a RAPID area. Who decides how much funding each area gets? I know it has to go to the Department. It is one of the biggest plans because this has been a disadvantaged area for a long time. Who decides which area gets what and how much money is given out? There is nothing as bad for a local councillor as this issue. As previous speakers have said, councillors do amazing work but they are undermined in what they do. They are working with communities and giving 100% to their locality. Every councillor in every one of the 31 local authorities will be fighting to ensure that his or her area gets what it can. However, one sees some areas getting a few million more. I ask that every local authority and area gets its fair share, no matter what big projects go to the Department.

It is sad that there is no one from the Department here today because it is crucial. The buck will stop with the Department. I want to ensure that fair play is given by LCDCs to all the rural counties. While I have no problem with Dublin, we all need an equal share. I ask the witnesses to keep that in mind. It is great to see everyone here. It the first time I have met with the groups since I became a Senator. I am delighted to welcome them here.

Mr. Paul Reid:

I will make a few general comments and then call on my two colleagues to address some of the technical questions. There is no doubt that this process is at an early stage. The AILG delegation made that point in terms of the development of plans, their implementation and the overall process and governance. From an executive point of view, we are looking at it closely to see the effectiveness and forming a view about how it may be possible to streamline, in terms of some of the points made by Deputies and Senators, decision-making and bureaucracy. It is early days, however. In this early phase, one of they key parts of the process consists of the public participation networks. Deputy Ó Broin asked about their stage of development and effectiveness. Again, it is very early. Where they have been very useful has been in galvanising or co-ordinating a large number of groups into one process. Speaking from the perspective of my own county, there are more than 420 groups in the PPN in its entirety. We have been aiming across all the local authorities to give PPNs some support to help to strengthen their capacity building. That includes building Internet sites for them so that all of the various policy documents are accessible and supporting the election of nominees to LCDCs. We have given them a great deal of support and I have certainly seen a strong and steady improvement over the last year or so in the capacity of the PPNs.

Senator Coffey asked about the engagement of the agencies and the effectiveness of that. It is strengthening as we move through this process. To give some examples, we work at local level across a number of different processes that make an impact at local level, including socio-economic processes, age-friendly initiatives, on one of which we have been working heavily in particular, and mental health. In those areas, we have seen agencies co-ordinating much more strongly. The Departments of Health and Social Protection and the HSE have been working strongly with local authorities and that has been very encouraging from our perspective. I am actually quite positive about the capacity going forward to make these processes work and to strengthen the role of elected members. I make the point around some of the strategic policy committees, which throws another acronym into the mix today, and the economic aspects of this. Committee members made some points about the role elected local authority members can have in engaging with State agencies like the IDA, Enterprise Ireland and local enterprise offices having regard to their roles and strategies. We have seen very good engagement from elected members.

They have given us very good direction on what areas to focus on in each of the local authorities.

Senator Boyhan commented on our recommendations and I shall briefly cover some of queries. We made a point about the roll-out of broadband in our submission. We are working with the Department and Minister on the current national tender for the national broad strategy and the role that local government can play. We do not fund the roll-out but, following tender process, we will work to ensure that we put in place streamlined agreements and supports, whether there are planning or wayleave issues, to support the successful tenders in order that they can quickly roll out broadband across the country. The Minister and her Department have been supportive and provided funding and extra resources to work with us, which we are finalising, to strengthen the broadband capacity in the area.

I have spent most of my working life in the private sector as a director of Eircom and know we need investment across the country. I was on the other side of this debate for many years so I know what the issue is. It is the Government's capacity to stimulate investment with the private sector across the country.

A good point was made about the resourcing of sport. We have strongly engaged with the Department over the past while. At the start we all agreed to get the process working and try to understand our oversight and role in terms of SICAP, Leader and the administration of the processes. We made a submission to the Department seeking extra resources for all of the local authorities. The Department put forward a submission in the Estimates for the extra associated funding and some of it has been put into the budgets. We are currently working strongly with the Department on the form of the resource in each local authority and will assist in the decision to have one, two or three people. We hope to close the matter in the coming months.

My final point is about the executive in all of the local authorities. I disagree with the claim made that there are cosy agreements. We generate problems for ourselves with Departments and sometimes with Ministers. In the past I have been vocal about the fact that local authorities have stepped up to the mark, particularly for issues like housing. We have made our case about the areas that we deliver on. We fully respect the fact that we are public servants and are open to challenge. We have a voice and shall continue to be vocal.

In terms of the overall impact on communities, I am genuinely quite positive about the initiative. I am less than three years in local government. The reason I joined local government is because I believe that local government has a great future. I have seen at first hand the impact that elected members can make through LCDCs. I take on board the comments made by members on how to strengthen local government. I ask my colleagues to comment.

Mr. Pat Dowling:

I shall make some general comments. My background commenced with Leader and then I was involved in the establishment of a county development board and its first strategy. It was a great era where everyone was brought together in a room and it ensured we had a united delivery. Cohesion is a core aspect of community plans. We also need integrated development, joined-up thinking and the removal of a multiplicity of agencies and plans, as Deputy Cowen mentioned, plus ensuring we have a united delivery approach. The Local Government Act makes it clear that our role is to protect the interests of the community. That is of paramount importance and has guided Government policy.

It is important to stress that the LECPs, LCDCs and all of the acronyms that Deputy Ó Broin referred to exist because it is Government policy to bring about a greater united approach in the delivery of programmes. Public moneys continue to fund a range of initiatives at a local level. It is important that local government, as the agent and arm of central Government, plays its role in co-ordinating and bringing full transparency to all of these programmes. I empathise with the frustrations felt by members who have been on LEOs, enterprise boards, development boards and companies around which we can local projects funded. It is important that such programmes are not beyond the reach and influence of the local authority as it acts as the civil guardian of that county and community due to being the only organisation that is elected by the people. Therefore, it is important to protect such an institution.

Members have mentioned the important democratic mandate. As somebody who has come from outside of the local government sector and worked in some of these agencies, notwithstanding the wonderful work that is done, I believe the democratic mandate is important. While elected members were members of boards of Leader and partnership companies, the local authority per sedid not have a ratifying and sanctioning role in the programmes, which is what brings the required transparency.

The concerns of members about the programmes are well noted. However, these are early days and we are in a new phase. County Clare has its own challenges in terms of this matter. Let us bear in mind that the LCDC is a committee of the council that brings relevant parts of companies that ensure the money is allocated in accordance with the LECP for the county. In the past there was a Leader plan and other plans that gathered their own data and local authorities were marginally involved. The new scheme is an improvement but time will be the barometer of its success.

The concerns of members have been well noted and reflect those of other people. If these structures bring added bureaucracy to communities then it is our job to alleviate that because that is not the intent. The current plan has brought us all around the table in order that we can move local community development forward.

Ms Dorothy Clarke:

I shall add to what my two colleagues have said. Most of the questions and observations made today were on the role of the councillor and his or her democratic mandate. A number of questions were asked about SICAP. There were quite a lot of questions on the rural development programme and Leader, and on how they have evolved and are being rolled out. My colleagues and I were also asked to comment on monitoring and evaluation. There were individual queries about RAPID areas and deprived areas.

The role of the county councillor is key in terms of the role we perform at a local level, particularly in our engagement with local communities. County councillors have paved the way for us whether that was the LECP, local development strategy or whatever programme or plan we consult on. We see the role of councillors as key and we will do anything in our power to enhance their role. My two colleagues have commented on the democratic mandate. It is there and it is a fact.

Deputy Ó Broin has said that he remains unconvinced that SICAP has added value to the work of the local authority and community sectors, in particular to the work of the LECPs and the LCDCs. We launched these plans in the past couple of months. Most of the plans were completed between February and August and then they were launched by the Minister at the National Ploughing Championship last September. It is early days for the programmes and next year will be the implementation phase. We had an extensive engagement process because the consultation process between communities and State agencies took the best part of two years to complete.

There is no point in having a plan to just leave it on a shelf and, therefore, it must be implemented. We are liaising with the Department on the best way to monitor the implementation of the plan because it will be subject to oversight by National Oversight and Audit Commission, NOAC. We are also required to give feedback to the Department on how the scheme is being implemented and, particularly on the strategic objectives, and how we implement the national policies at a local level whether it is the national Action Plan for Jobs, healthy cities or whatever else.

All the national and Government policies are reflected in local economic and community plans, LECPs, at local level so it is critical we get feedback, and the correct guidance documentation on how we can give feedback, in order that there is uniformity among all local authority areas.

The Local Government Reform Act set the foundation for the establishment of the local community and development committees, LCDCs, and the preparation and implementation of the LECPs. SICAP is one of the roles of the LCDCs and the initial SICAP programme launched for a nine-month period in 2015. We started working on it in March when none of the LECPs had been completed, so it would have been difficult to deliver SICAP in this context. Allowances were made for that in the 2016 programme but we will be able to go back and ensure the new programme reflects the objectives and actions of the LECPs.

Another question was on direct grant aid being replaced by a competitive bid, but we did not make that decision. It was a Government decision and it is being rolled out. One year and nine months into the SICAP programme, there is a good understanding between us and the local development company programme, which implements the projects at local level, on targets that are being set. There is a similarly good understanding between us and the Department and us and Pobal. There may seem to be a lot of bureaucracy and form filling but it has led to a better understanding, particularly in relation to the target groups. Deprived and disadvantaged areas will form part of the three areas in which we are working.

Deputy Casey asked about local action groups, LAGs, and said that some groups have been asked to go through procurement before they could apply to the Leader programme for grant aid. I hope he is exaggerating. In two or three counties the local development companies are the LAGs, while in the rest the LCDC is the local action group, and expressions of interest have been sought by most of them for projects. It will be 2017 before the applications come back to the evaluation committees and the LAGs for approval. A project needs to be researched well and business plans and planning permissions need to be in place as these are EU rules and we have to abide by them. A project has to be well developed before it can be considered for funding.

Mr. Dowling covered the questions about the level of bureaucracy and we will try to assist community groups, especially those which shout the loudest, which are better prepared and get in there first to get the bulk of the funding. We are insisting that local development groups, as the implementing partner, fund capacity-building for weaker groups and those in disadvantaged areas in order that those communities can avail of projects.

We will try to be as accessible as possible. In my area there have been community consultations and any Leader funding has been explained, which I assume has happened nationwide. There were queries on public participation networks, PPNs, but Mr. Reid covered those. We are working on the length of time it takes, from assessment committees to the LAG, to assess projects for approval. We try to have tight timescales but, equally, to have the capacity and time to deal with them in a fair and transparent way. Senator Murnane O'Connor mentioned disadvantaged areas and RAPID programmes. I believe the Department is planning to introduce funding for them again.

Mr. Pat Daly:

Senator Murnane O'Connor asked about town councils. In Clare, we had 68 councillors up to the Local Government Reform Act and now we have 28. In a former life I worked for former Deputy Tony Killeen and Ennis had huge budgets that seem to have disappeared. They have been a major loss. Ennis is a town of 30,000 and there are many such towns in Ireland which should have been left with a town council. It was a big decision and I think it was the wrong one. The workload for councillors has gone up, there are fewer of them and they have a greater workload.

Senators Boyhan and Coffey asked about county managers and CEOs having little clubs in the custom houses. I have to be very careful as my CEO is in front of me. It is recognised throughout the country that councillors are not being told the whole story. Deputy Cowen mentioned planning in Clare. We had workshops under the county development plan but whatever plans were made were changed very quickly after those workshops, in areas such as the rezoning of land. I do not mean anything personal about Mr. Dowling when I say that.

Mr. Damien Geoghegan:

My first point relates to bureaucracy, on which Senators Boyhan and Casey touched. As it states in my presentation to the committee, we have to guard against what might be termed "plan fatigue". As councillors we spend a great deal of our time considering an increasing multitude of plans. There is the well-established county development plan, local area plans and corporate plans and now we have the local economic and community plans. We need strategies and frameworks to ensure we develop our localities in ways that are purposeful and progressive. It is probably true to say that we have been too reactive in Ireland when it comes to development, making localised interventions but not putting together a broader vision. However, let us not go to the opposite extreme, where so much time is spent constructing plans and so much more time co-ordinating a growing labyrinth of documents that we lose focus on the common-sense realities of delivering the services that the public needs. In a nutshell, that is what we encounter as public representatives.

My second point relates to the primacy of the role of the elected member of a council. The County and City Management Association and the officials in the Custom House are the people with the real power in local government. The executive, and our membership across the political spectrum, believes that power has been taken away from the elected member. The power of local authority members has been diminished and continues to be diminished across a broad range of areas. We have PPNs, LCDCs, Leader committees and SPCs and, while local authority members sit on those committees, the only people who have a direct mandate from the public are the elected members of the councils and that has to be respected.

Of course we have to interact with community groups, business groups, and chambers of commerce and they need to have their say. The feeling among elected members of local authorities is that they are being squeezed out and it has to be rectified. It has been happening for a number of years. That is the point I want to make today on behalf of the membership of the Association of Irish Local Government.

Mr. Paul Taylor:

Mr. Geoghegan has spoken about some of the things I want to speak about. I concur with Senator Boyhan and Mr. Geoghegan on many of the issues. We are at the early stages of the plans and we have no delivery on certain aspects of those plans yet. I agree with Ms Clarke that councillors are key locally. The expansion and strengthening of local authority functions in development has had the opposite effect for the elected members. Those who sit on SPCs and LCDCs probably only make up 20% to 30%. It limits the participation of elected members and therefore limits accountability and transparency.

We are talking about building economies and everything.

Maria Bailey (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Someone's phone is interfering.

Mr. Paul Taylor:

We are talking about building economies. A number of policy decisions are having a negative impact on rural areas, including the removal of services such as post offices, Garda stations and schools. Broadband is a huge issue in rural areas and we do not know how far that has progressed yet. I concur with much of what has been said today. It has been informative to be here and it should improve things for the future.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have had very good engagement here this morning. It has been really worthwhile. I accept Mr. Paul Reid's point about cosy arrangements and note the response. It is incumbent on the County and City Managers Association, an organisation that is partially but not entirely funded by the taxpayers - that is a debate for another day - to communicate its central themes and policies better.

One of the witnesses told us about making a submission about resources. I ask the witnesses to share a copy of that submission with us. I do so not to check on what the witness is doing, but to be an advocate and to push it further because we have a forum in this room to push and resource this programme. The witness will not find people wanting in helping the witness and the witness's organisation and the process. If the witness will share that with us, we will take it on board. I give the witness a commitment to pursue each of the objectives in the witness's organisation's submission. The more that organisation shares this information with all the stakeholders, the more we can assist one another. I thank all the groups.

Given that we have representatives from the Association of Irish Local Government present, we might ask them a few questions on what Deputy Cowen mentioned, the supremacy of the county development plan. This afternoon in the Seanad we will debate proposals that will impact on the supremacy of the county development plan and the elected members. Clearly we can articulate that later, but it would be worth taking the opportunity to tease out some issues with the AILG.

Maria Bailey (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I remind members that we have to finish at noon so that we do not overlap.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Coffey spoke about the influence of councillors in spending decisions. My experience of the community activation programme tendering process as a member of the local community development committee was that we did not get to see the detail of what was being agreed. There was a sub-committee of the local community development committee that dealt with the tender. We had to approve it but we did not know about the programmes or activity and we did it blind. The next time the tender happens there will be a plan, but because of how the tendering process works the members of the LCDC do not get to compare the content of the plan with the content of the tender, which is a real problem and it means almost nobody on the LCDC gets to have any real say over the details of any of that. That needs to be looked at.

I am very concerned over how this process has led to a centralisation of funding in very large organisations, namely the partnership boards. I am not of the view that councillors need to dictate to every group that gets funding. There are many groups, particularly in disadvantaged areas, which were doing very beneficial work in the communities but no longer get any funding. Community development projects are gone, independent training centres are on the way out and in many cases have lost their funding. The women's support networks lost their funding from the Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government and had to get funding elsewhere. There is a concentration in very large groups like the partnerships, which do very important work but there is a loss of that independent, vibrant grass-roots community sector and local authorities do not have the funds through their community grants to make up that shortfall, which is a serious error.

While I know tendering is Government policy, it has an impact. That impact will only be seen at the level at which the managers and councillors operate. It needs to be reviewed because it profoundly changes the nature of the relationship between the funder and the service deliverer. It is one of the real problems I have with the programme.

Pat Casey (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I fully support the LCDC process and the LECP. I was just trying to highlight where I see blockages coming down the road.

Senator Coffey referred to the waste of money in Leader. Making generalised statements like that is unfair to Leader companies that have delivered on the ground.

Paudie Coffey (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not generalised. It is a fact that there are governance issues around the country.

Pat Casey (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There could equally be governance issues in local government and in Departments regarding waste of money.

I fully agree with the point about capacity building. The better-off communities got better benefits in previous Leader programmes because they had the capacity to deal with the bureaucratic process that is in place. One of the key objectives of the LECP was to deal with this capacity issue. Sadly the capacity to deal with their Leader programme projects on a one-to-one basis has been removed from them. I know the Department has now agreed to staff the community sector. Does the CCMA have a plan to take up that slack to deliver capacity building in communities that clearly do not have the capacity to deal with what they have to deal with? It is fundamental to get all communities on a level playing pitch.

Do the members and does the Department realise the level of commitment the chairs and members of the LCDCs have to make to that process? They need to attend meetings that could take all morning. When it moves from the LCDC to the LAG, it could continue into the afternoon and we have not even dealt with one project at LCDC level at this stage.

The interpretation of European rules in the approval of projects was hard enough when dealing just with Leader and the Department. Every stage that is added in, adds complication to the interpretation of rules. One of the big ones on the last one was voluntary labour where a number of community groups were approved at Leader level and at Department level but when it came down to the funding of the project and drawing down the money, the Department refused to pay voluntary labour on some projects. Some communities have been brave enough to challenge that and have taken it to court, but other communities were left at sea.

I am concerned about that. I am fully behind this but just believe there is too much bureaucracy involved. We need to remove that and get back to the people who are delivering for us.

Jennifer Murnane O'Connor (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree with Deputy Pat Casey.

To return to the issue of the LCDC and the Leader programme, as we would have known it, it is over three to four years since any money has come from the Department for any projects. When I was on Leader, there were 15 projects in respect of which we were awaiting the go-ahead. It never happened. When I went to the LCDC meetings recently, I asked whether any of those projects would be considered. I was told they would not but that the applicants could reapply. What is the timescale? When will money be fully released for projects? What is the update on that? In a few months, could the delegates come back to us on this?

When Senators, most of whom were councillors, dealt with the local authorities, they were at all the LCDC and Leader meetings. Now we need to be kept informed and to know exactly when funding is coming. In my area, Carlow, the local authority and LCDCs have projects that will be proceeding. Therefore, it is good to know when money will be released and the timescale. We are being told it will be in 2017. Does one apply for one's project in 2017? What is the timescale for payment?

Mr. Pat Daly:

A comment was made on our being the activists. They are doing a good job but some are over-active. There are super guys who believe they know everything. They would get a bigger profile by putting their names on the ballot paper. Then they would find out how good they are.

Mr. Pat Dowling:

On what Deputy Casey was saying, there are emerging structural issues. We are hearing that loud and clear. There are other operational issues we need to bear in mind as a result of the discussion today and to put into the mix as regards the rolling out of the structures. As I said before, time will tell. We need to ensure we do not over-complicate this. People were used to the bureaucracy that existed. We have introduced a new one and we have to make sure it is as effective and efficient as possible. I still believe strongly, however, that, in time, all the groups will come together to have one integrated plan for the one county or city. I hope I am proven right. This is the principal merit and we hope it will operate.

Ms Dorothy Clarke:

Could I just clarify a point on capacity building? Animation funding is still available. That is up-front and advanced. It has already been advanced to the implementing partners at local level through the LCDC. The capacity building for those groups that need it is available. It will be the local development companies on the ground that will be working with those groups. They are doing so at this point in time. I reassure members on that.

Pat Casey (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

From the information I have, the operating rules refer only to cases of investment and other supports. It would also be valuable in the case of training. The operating rule concerns investment and other supports. I am seriously worried about the implementation of this programme. I have been through it and now note we have added more bureaucracy to it. I have concerns.

Ms Dorothy Clarke:

I do not agree there is more bureaucracy. In one sense, the LCDCs are taking over a role the Department would have had in the past, along with some of the role carried out by the Leader programmes. It is just a different way of delivering. There is always a lot of bureaucracy attached to EU programmes. This is an EU programme. The animation funding for capacity building exists, and the implementing partners, the local development companies on the ground, are operating that at present. It is available for them to operate on the ground at present.

On the timescale, the Leader programme is for the period 2014 to 2020. I refer to the structural funds, etc. Of course, it does not immediately happen in 2014 because, at national level, the various Departments have to liaise with the European Union. That has taken quite a while to come into play. It is only now, I suppose, that all the moneys for plans at national level approved for the last year have been spent under the local development strategies. I refer to the plans for the distribution of Leader funding. They have now been approved by the Department for the period from 2017 onwards.

Expressions of interest have been requested at local level by most, if not all, the local action groups. They are coming in. I would imagine that, early in 2017, groups will be able to apply if their project is ready on the ground and meets the Leader criteria. If there is a capital element to the project, it will take longer before money can be drawn down. Depending on the project, if everything is completed and the criteria are met, the moneys can be claimed, be it in a month, two months or another period. I would imagine that this should be happening from quarter 1 or quarter 2 of 2017 but it will depend on the project.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the four minutes we have left, many of us would really like to hear what both the CCMA and AILG have to say about two aspects of the planning Bill that will be coming before the Houses, namely, the strategic housing developments and the Part 8 arrangements. If the delegates could respond in four minutes, it would be useful.

Maria Bailey (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

AILG did submit something, which we will circulate again among all the members.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It did but I would like it on the record of the committee.

Mr. Tommy Moylan:

If I could quickly come in. I apologise to my colleagues as an impromptu meeting with the Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney, has been arranged in the past 15 minutes. We have distributed our policy paper on the draft Bill. While we welcome the elements of the Bill and have been supportive of the special Oireachtas committee set up in May 2016 and of the Minister and the Department on Rebuilding Ireland - Action Plan for Housing and Homelessness, we have concerns over Part 2 in regard to the proposal on the setting up of the strategic housing division within An Bord Pleanála to adjudicate on planning applications or fast-track planning applications for residential developments of 100 units plus. It is our firm belief and that of our members and, I hope, the executives of our local authorities that planning and the planned provision of housing have always been a key function of the local authority planning system. Any move away from this, no matter how temporary, as provided for in the Bill, is viewed by us as a further dilution of the role of the local authority. The planning and development of housing projects, be they social or private, need to result in sustainable, integrated communities with access to vital services for the benefit of the people who live in them. This is particularly the case for larger residential developments. By leaving that function within the local planning system for all residential developments, one can be assured that all housing projects are designed to ensure this objective is achieved.

There is no doubt but that there are delays in the planning system. Under this Bill, including under Part 2, the proposal to get rid of a whole tier of the planning function to address delays or perceived delays, is one that my association is totally against. Let us work together to tackle the delays. In our policy document, we have put forward a number of solutions with regard to extensions of time, the requests for further information, and timelines on those requests going back in with a view to reducing delays. To us, getting rid of a whole tier of the planning system for the purpose outlined is unacceptable. We have concerns that there is further centralisation of the planning function. For developments of over 100 units, An Bord Pleanála will become both the consenting and appeals authority. That could have legal implications further down the road.

Maria Bailey (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am really sorry, but we have to vacate the room by 12 noon. The issue will be before the committee again in the next two weeks. We have the submission of the County and City Management Association which we will circulate again to members. We would welcome any further submission the delegates might wish to make.

Ms Dorothy Clarke:

We will welcome the planning Bill, in particular, if it does provide clarity on the planning process. However, it is early days and we have not been fully briefed on the implications or full content of the Bill. It would be premature, therefore, to make any comment on it. We understand there may be an increased role for local authorities in pre-planning, but it would be premature for us to make any critical statement at this stage.

Maria Bailey (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With the agreement of the committee, I suggest we invite the representatives of the AILG and the CCMA to come back in five to six months. That will give us time to look at the issue again and perhaps review the process. Submissions from either group on the planning Bill would be most welcome. I sincerely thank the delegates for attending. I am sorry that we had to cut them short.