Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I do not support amendment No. 40, but we will discuss the issue with amendment No. 47, when we come to it. Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 propose additional categories to be covered in regard to the membership of committees. I do not agree that a reference, as proposed, to drawing members from communities of interest is required, because section 128D (2)(d) already provides for members to be drawn from representatives of local community interests and this includes communities of interest. A key aim is to ensure a tight focused membership of the committees. The proposed amendments to provide, for example, for guaranteed membership for representatives of all social partnerships would inevitably result in a larger than intended membership. It is well known to all here today that we have had a plethora of large committees and boards, where frequently their effectiveness suffers due to the size of the membership. The recommendation made to me by the expert group that studied local development alignment was to keep the committees as small and as focused as possible. Accordingly, I do not support these amendments.

Similarly, I do not support amendment No. 45, concerning the nomination of elected members to local community development committees. When the chief officer is seeking nominees for the local community development committee, he or she shall do so in consultation with the corporate policy group, CPG, as a result of an amendment that was accepted on Committee Stage. Given that the process for selecting nominees will now be carried out in consultation with the CPG, I oppose amendment No. 45.

This argument also applies to amendment No. 46, which proposes that the elected members to be nominated to the committee shall have been elected by the local authority. I will, in due course, bring forward regulations to cover the detailed arrangements for the nomination by various stakeholder bodies to the local community development committees and in doing so, I will consult with the representatives of elected members to ensure a fair and reasonable process is followed in the nomination of elected members to the committee.

I do not support amendment No. 47, relating to local authority membership and the chairmanship of local community development committees. The legislation, as drafted, reflects the balance between the status of the committee as a committee of the local authority on the one hand and the independence of the committee in the performance of its functions on the other, for example, for the purposes of drawing down EU local development funds. A guarantee that the chairperson should be drawn from a specific sectoral interest or that a specific sectoral interest should have a minimum number of members would undermine the independence of the committee and impact on its eligibility as an implementer of key EU local development programmes. Given this requirement, I am not in a position to support the amendments as proposed. However, I should point out that elected members may very well be the chair of these committees. This has already happened in the case of County Cork.

Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 relate to the making of regulations regarding local development community development committees. As proposed, amendment No. 49 would require the Minister to consult with non-governmental organisations, community groups and communities of interest when making ministerial regulations. I do not believe it would represent an effective process to consult with stakeholders in the very wide manner envisaged by the proposed amendments on each occasion that regulations are to be made or amended. However, I believe that consultation with citizens and communities is very important in the workings of the committees and in that regard the Bill provides significant avenues of consultation for citizens and communities in regard to the work of the LCDCs. For example, committees will be required to consult with members of the public in the preparation of the local economic and community plans. Moreover, I will provide for participation by the local community in local government in a more general way through the implementation of the recommendations of the working group on citizen engagement.

Amendment No. 50 proposes to remove the provisions that the Minister may consult with public authorities, as he or she considers appropriate, in the making of regulations. There is a range of public authorities with whom it would not be appropriate to consult, such as those with no involvement or interest in local development or community development. Therefore, I do not support the deletion of the text as proposed as this would require the Minister to consult with all public authorities.

I do not support amendment No. 56 as proposed. The amendment seeks to insert a provision in section 128, which deals with local community development committees, regarding what the amendment calls a working group on active citizenship. Section 44, relating to consultation with local communities, was accepted already on Committee Stage in the Seanad. This provides the framework for a range of measures which will flow from the recommendations of the working group on citizen engagement, which I am currently considering. Therefore, the amendment that has been proposed to section 128 is not necessary.

Amendment No. 57 seeks to add to the bodies designated as relevant bodies in section 128F. Section 128F (1) and Schedule 16 prescribe those bodies that shall be considered to be relevant bodies for the purposes of ensuring co-operation with the work of the local community development committees. It is envisaged that the programmes managed and delivered by the bodies listed as relevant bodies in the Bill will be the first to come within the provisions of section 128F. However, new bodies will be added to the list of relevant bodies by ministerial order as new arrangements are agreed with the LCDCs for the implementation of programmes by bodies other than those listed. Similarly, when more programmes come within the remit of the local community development committees, the list of bodies coming within the scope of section 128G and therefore deemed to be the relevant bodies will be expanded. The fact that the groups mentioned in the amendment are not designated as relevant bodies in 128F does not indicate a lack of recognition of the role of these groups in local and community development.