Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)

Opening events in the House this morning indicate that reform is very much on the agenda in order that when issues arise outside of Friday or normal Dáil sitting times they can be addressed.

I was co-opted on to Dublin City Council for the past few months of the previous term and speak from that point of view. Like other Members, I have extensive contact with local authorities. I share the frustration expressed in relation to local authority meetings at which many people speaking on the same topic often say the same thing but in many ways. Often people table issues by way of emergency motion expecting that to be the way forward but they simply remain on paper. At one meeting I attended a motion on schools was passed. I wondered at the time what the local authority had to do with schools yet an hour was spent discussing an issue in respect of which it had no role.

While this Bill deals with a particular issue, I would like to make some general points, in particular in regard to reform of local government in accordance with the programme for Government. The Government has set up a group entitled the Independent Local Government Efficiency Implementation Group, which as the Minister indicated in response to a parliamentary question, has met a number of times and will report at regular intervals. Perhaps the Minister will indicate at what stage the group is in terms of its work. Also, are community groups involved given they are the residents and groups whose lives are most impacted by the work of the local authority? The Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Burton, has stated that there will be a review of community employment schemes. I have asked that there be a random selection of participants on the schemes who could then have a direct input into the review. Likewise, a random selection of residents or community groups who are directly involved with the local authority could also be allowed to have an input into its review.

As in all organisations and institutions, there are people employed in the local authorities who do not work to the best of their ability or in a satisfactory manner. Dublin City Council - I will start with a negative and then move on to the positive - has been involved in controversial matters which have caused major difficulties for communities and in respect of which it was not seen to have been pro-community, including housing, services for the homeless and infrastructure. In my constituency of Dublin Central, there is repeated flooding. While the cause of this is known, little is being done about it. We all remember the floods of 24 October. Another problem is that of pyrite. Dublin City Council supported some very controversial planning applications and decisions which were to the detriment of the relevant communities. There has been neglect of areas and public private partnership has collapsed. Communities long neglected were given hope by public private partnerships, in respect of which there were wonderful plans for housing, community and youth facilities, landscaping and so on but these hopes have been dashed.

We need a task force to address the problem of litter, which is out of control in particular areas. An astronomical amount of money has been wasted on the incinerator and Dublin City Council has been lacking in respect of areas of conservation and preservation. I am sure this is not only happening in Dublin. Moore Street is a national disgrace rather than a national memorial to the men and women of 1916. It has been allowed to go to rack and ruin. It is hoped that in the time remaining before the 2016 celebrations, the Departments of the Environment, Community and Local Government and Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht can put in place a proper plan to ensure it will be a fitting memorial.

In spite of those negatives, I acknowledge the Dublin City Council staff with whom I am in contact daily. Those staff are located in the offices in Sean McDermot Street, Parnell Street and in Cabra. I have a good relationship with staff in the homelessness and other sections. The staff with whom I have been dealing are committed and dedicated and work to the best of their ability. Some of them are currently doing double the amount of work as many of their colleagues who have retired or resigned have not been replaced. This week, I attended four local community meetings. The local authority staff also in attendance had the answers to the questions raised at a previous meeting some two months ago and have been following up on those issues.

I will outline some of the positives for Dublin City Council, including the library service, culture and the arts, parks and landscape, the manner in which it supports local neighbourhoods through the promotion of the environment and local events such as summer projects, playgrounds, sports officers, the bike scheme, which has been a great success and the recent use of public spaces. Also, it has been involved in some innovative housing schemes, including Wolfe Tone Square and the senior citizen housing in Aughrim Street, Clareville and North Wall. Before I became involved in politics I was on several committees, including the Young Peoples Facilities and Services Fund and the Cavan Centre which included representatives from the local authority, whose work was outstanding. There are many positives but the negatives must be tackled. This is at a time when local authority funding is being cut.

For me, reform must be meaningful and accountable. Local authorities must be professional in tackling the issues facing communities. This can be done by working with communities and dealing with situations before they become emergencies. Community must be at the centre and there must be meaningful and not confrontational consultation involved. I support the Bill in terms of accountability. I point out that on each occasion I, as a public representative, have put a question to or contacted an office it did not take 15 or 20 days for me to get a response: I got a quick response. The difficulty is that people are unable to get a response to their questions and must resort to their public representative in this regard. Sometimes the response received is not a reply to the question asked or the answer is vague or general. This is the reason the inclusion of the word "substantive" in the Bill is very important.

Section 3(c) refers to when "the local authority does not have access to the information that is required in order to provide a substantive reply to the request sought in the written communication". There is a need to include a provision to the effect that the local authority will undertake to get it, to prevent the case going to the Ombudsman because that office already has enough work to do and this would be adding to it. In this context, Members are considering the Bill at a time when the number of local authority staff has been reduced. I do not favour the spending of an inordinate amount of time by local authority staff on following up questions were this to mean front-line services would be neglected. There must be a balance struck in this regard.

The issue of where power rests within a local authority must be addressed because in some local authorities power is being taken from the elected representatives. I will conclude by noting the Minister has proposed a greater alignment of community and enterprise functions with the local government system in accordance with the programme of Government. He should indicate precisely what is meant by this because there have been attacks on and has been an undermining of community development, which is a shame.

See this speech in context