Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)

I thank Members for their constructive comments. A number of interesting points were made, although not all necessarily confined to the remit of the legislation before the House. They were, nevertheless, interesting for any of us who have served on local authorities, who acknowledge the wonderful work they do and who suspect they could do much better work if the framework was more user-friendly.

Senator Coffey raised a number of questions which were raised in one format or another by almost all speakers. Senator Brady and others referred to the role and remit of these bodies, whether we all know what they do, whether we have all heard of some of them and so on. That is a reasonable point and Senator Brady said it would be useful to invite them in to explain what they do. The Oireachtas committee system has very much facilitated that in respect of many bodies. Perhaps the system could be used in this instance and I might come back to that.

I refer to the Local Government Computer Services Board. The increase in costs arises mainly from an increase in the workload. The e-Government project and other projects have assisted in saving money through increased efficiency at central level, although Senator Kelly asked whether that was the case. The evidence strongly suggests it is.

The annual cost of the Local Government Management Services Board includes almost €4 million for the workplace partnership process at local authority level and the balance is for the cost of administrative staff and arises from an increase in the functions of the board such as the performance verification group and a larger body of employment legislation, especially in the area of health and safety. It is charged with assisting local authorities in delivering and understanding that.

I cannot answer the question about performance indicators at this stage. It is a critical one in terms of an element of the role of the bodies. If I am successful in getting additional information, I will be more than happy to revert to Senator Coffey with it but I cannot promise I will.

A review of the roles of the Local Government Management Services Board and the Local Government Computer Services Board is taking place to consider their future roles, which will be important. The issue of the Dublin Transportation Office was raised by a number of Senators. It has been within the ambit of the Department of Transport since 2002 but it was set up in 1995 under the 1971 Act. That is the reason it is listed on this occasion as part of this legislation. I understand the Minister for Transport has indicated he intends to set up the Dublin transportation authority in the not too distant future and that it will subsume the role of the existing agency. I believe it will have a much wider remit and perhaps more powers.

I refer to the timescales for the Limerick regeneration agencies. The establishment order for both agencies set a date of 14 June 2012 for the agencies to conclude their operations. It is fair to point out that until the agencies deliver their masterplans this summer, it will be very difficult to predict the timescales because we do not know exactly the extent of the job with which they are charged.

I believe Senator Burke raised the question of people in the various bodies retiring at 65 years. I understand entrants to the public service following the enactment of the 2004 Act will not have to retire at 65 years. Others are guided by the previous legislation, or at least their terms and conditions are.

I will come back to Senator Coffey on the details of the remit of the Limerick agencies. The important point in regard to their inclusion is that any doubt which might have arisen in terms of their validity, having been set up under the 1971 Act, is removed by their inclusion. However, I will come back to the Senator with additional information.

Senator Brady said the roles of the bodies should be examined. As I said, two of them are under examination. There was some examination of the role of Irish Water Safety, or at least a proposal that it go elsewhere. It has been found to be efficient and performing very well. It is a body about which I knew relatively little prior to being appointed to this post. Having had the opportunity to examine the type of work it does, I am convinced it plays an important role in ensuring a much better water safety regime and that fewer people die by drowning.

When one applies the criteria under which bodies were set up and one finds they are working reasonably well, one tends to continue with them. Senator Kelly also made a point about the role of the bodies. As I pointed out to a committee the other day, I am under considerable pressure to set up an additional body, a fire safety authority. That is something which must be considered on its own merits. It is not always correct to state that there are too many bodies in existence, particularly if people do so only because they feel they do not know much about a large number of them. Sometimes there are areas where the process of obtaining outcomes is best served by having in place a national authority of one kind or another. The Senator also inquired whether IT savings always arise in circumstances where a central body is in operation.

Senator Boyle and others referred to the Green Paper. The Senator made an important ancillary point in respect of the accountability of agencies under the normal procedures for the auditing of their accounts by the relevant local government body or the Comptroller and Auditor General. Questions of policy and accountability also arise and these might well be examined by the relevant Oireachtas committees, which might deal with them more efficiently than those operating at local government level.

Senator Burke referred to domestic charges for local authorities and inquired as to whether these are fully recouped by the Department or are, de facto, charged to businesses in order to make up the difference. I will forward to the Senator figures in respect of the current position in that regard.

Like other Members, Senator Glynn referred to the role of locally elected representatives and local authorities. He voiced concerns that perhaps this role has diminished, particularly in the case of town councils in respect of which the Senator has an interest. The point he made was almost the reverse of the central principle, namely, "No taxation without representation", behind the Boston tea party. Many of us are of the view that local authorities would have no great power or relevance if they were not in a position to raise revenue.

The question of financing is not relevant to the debate on the Bill. It will be relevant, however, in the context of the Green Paper, in respect of which the Minister, Deputy Gormley, answered questions in the Dáil yesterday. It is important to remember that a Green Paper sets out the framework for discussion that will allow us to proceed towards developing a White Paper. It is of major importance that Members of this House — rather than their colleagues in the Lower House — have access to and dealings with local authority representatives at a particular level and that they have an insight that will be critical in moving us through the three steps from Green Paper, to White Paper, to legislation and on to setting out a framework for local government which could well serve the country for the next two generations or perhaps even a century.

The role of the House in examining the policy and the legislation that will emerge from it will be critically important. I hope I will still be with the Department when the legislation is introduced in the House and that I will be here for at least some of the debate on it. The House has a perspective — this does not just reflect that of local authority representatives — which will enable it to be extremely constructive in respect of this matter.

I thank Senators for their contributions. I also thank my officials for the briefing notes provided and for their assistance. I look forward to the Committee and Report Stage debates on the Bill.