Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)

I thank Deputy Niall Collins and the other Members who have contributed to the debate so far for their interest in the matter of local authority public administration. I have certain sympathy with the comments they made in respect of local authorities answering queries. For local government to be effective, efficient and focused locally, it must be allowed have a wide level of operational discretion. This is not possible where the most basic operational matters are prescribed in primary legislation. If public representatives are dissatisfied with the level of service available, it is open to them, as elected members, to bring the matter to the attention of the relevant council. A local authority's corporate policy group would be the appropriate forum in which to discuss such issues, particularly if elected members are of the view that corporate action plans, customer service charters or citizens' charters require review or if there is any weakness in the system in the context of obtaining replies to representations made. If councillors are unhappy with the level of service provided, there is a mechanism in place to allow them to deal with that issue. I will, however, ask local authorities to review their customer service charters in order that the inconsistencies relating to the issuing of replies might be addressed.

For the local government system to operate satisfactorily, a balanced and common-sense approach must be adopted. It is not my role or that of my Department to micro-manage local authorities. This flies in the face of everything for which I stand in the context of the devolution of responsibility. In addition, the Oireachtas should not prescribe how basic operational functions are undertaken. There may be a role for centrally-set performance standards for local authorities. However, primary legislation is not the way to proceed in this regard. A universal standard, set down in law, of 20 days for the issuing of a substantive reply would run the risk of reducing the scope for more rigorous requirements and better performance where this is appropriate. In addition, it would not allow for longer timeframes in circumstances where more complex issues might require to be addressed.

I must stress that efficient and effective service to the public is one of the guiding principles informing the local government reform project and the local government efficiency review. In fact, the local government efficiency review group, in its report of July 2010, acknowledged the commitment of local authorities to quality customer services. While the aims of the Bill could be seen as being consistent with this approach, I am concerned that what is proposed is too prescriptive in the context of the gamut of services provided by local authorities. In certain contentious areas of policy, and where policy is in the course of development, the prescriptive approach to which I refer runs a serious risk of damaging the efficient and effective delivery of the full range of services to the public. Responding to correspondence is only one of the services local authorities provide in their communities and it must not take precedence over other more front-line services.

The objectives of the Bill are best delivered through clarity in and adherence to local authorities' customer service charters and actions plans. In this regard, county and city councils generally commit to acknowledging correspondence within three to seven days and to providing substantive replies within three to four weeks. These timeframes are generally compatible with the proposals in the Bill. Crucially, however, they have been set locally having regard to specific circumstances. As stated, I am prepared to ensure local authorities will be informed with regard to reviewing their customer service plans or citizens' charters in order to ensure their commitments in respect of this matter will be honoured.

Deputy Niall Collins referred to the Ombudsman. I am sure he will not object if I state this is a welcome U-turn on the part of Fianna Fáil, which opposed the establishment of the office of Ombudsman when the late John Boland, a former Minister for the Public Service, sought to introduce it.

See this speech in context