Feargal Quinn (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Yes; I read about that in today's newspaper. When the Department of Health decided to create the HSE to do away with local bodies, we simply increased the number of administrators. We did not increase the number of doctors. I fear that something similar might happen in this case.

Why do we still have such exorbitant rates of pay in local government compared with our EU neighbours? Are our customers getting a better service than customers in Germany or the Netherlands do? I am sceptical.

Will the Minister of State respond to the accusation that the Bill may lead to increased rates for businesses? Surely this is the last thing we need when we are on the cusp of economic recovery. Could the Bill include a provision promising that rates would not be increased for five years? This would be a sensible measure, although I am unsure as to how to include it. It would protect businesses and give them some stability. If we also abolished upward-only rent reviews, businesses and the economy in general would see a considerable boost, and this would set the conditions for more job creation. The provision on rates could remove many businesses' fear that rates would be increased and that they would be put out of business.

I hope we are not getting bogged down in more red tape, although I fear we are. We are losing institutional knowledge when it comes to fostering business. The Bill will establish so-called strategic policy committees, SPCs, which will prepare local action plans - the Minister described these well - for economic activity and job creation and control local enterprise offices, LEOs, which replaced county enterprise boards, CEBs. It seems so confusing. I hope this new structure will be a success, but it seems that the structure will hinder job creation activities. Will the Minister of State address the status of this new system? When does he expect to see it up and running?

There are other worldwide ideas on the reform of local government. Would the Minister of State be open to them? I found the French example interesting. The French Government rightly identified that public service reform needed to focus on what mattered to citizens. In general, most people were found to perceive government services, both local and central, to be effective based on a small number of personal and professional interactions during what they called life events - for example, the ease with which a marriage licence could be obtained, a birth could be registered, a business could open a new branch or planning permission could be acquired. The French Government made it a key goal to increase public confidence by simplifying everyday interactions. Recent assessments showed that, on an individual level, the perceived complexity of conducting these life events - I like this phrase - had decreased by 20%. For businesses, the figure was 25%. The French Government used quick wins to get public confidence behind the programme, which is what our reforms need. It is possible if the Bill is implemented and provides quick wins in terms of life events.

In France, good departments have been held up as examples to weaker departments, showing them that change is possible.

Can the Minister take this on board in the context of reform of the local government system? Local government should be improving these face-to-face interactions and making this area a priority. More targets should be set in order that they are in some way motivated to improve customer service. There are other issues to consider, including identification of efficiencies in local government. For example, could staff be rewarded via collective bonuses when a service improves rather than remain in the same job for a number of years? This might be a fair way to reward actual improvement. I would welcome such a system. There must also be a measurement of results or outcomes on this basis.

Why can local government services not be operated on a business model? For example, could they be permitted to develop supplementary income streams and receive 100% of any efficiency gains generated rather than having to pay most of it into a system? This would promote efficiency. I have many other ideas, which I will give to the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dowd, before he leaves the Chamber.