John Paul Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

As I stated, the Government is of the view that the existing provisions of the Local Government Act 2001, as amended, meet the principal aims of the Bill. In particular, section 136 of the Act, which concerns the furnishing of information by the chief executive to the elected council, is applicable in this instance. Subsection 136(1) provides that the chief executive shall, whenever requested, provide to the elected council or its cathaoirleach, municipal district members, a strategic policy committee, local community development committee, LCDC, or any joint body all information that may be in his or her possession. Subsection 136(2) provides that the chief executive must submit a monthly management report to the council by the seventh day of each month. Subsection 136(3), to which I have referred, states that the Minister may provide by regulations the nature and form of those management reports. Such regulations have never been drafted but that may be the key subsection of the existing legislation under which that may be done.

Subsection 136(4) states the Minister may issue general policy guidelines for the purposes of subsections (2), (3) and (5). Although regulations have not been made, the Minister issued guidelines under subsection 136(4) on the preparation of monthly management reports on 2 July 2014. There is no provision for elected members to specify additional elements to be included in the monthly management report but the guidelines issued allow for such reports to be accommodated.

The Government is also of the view that the customer complaint guidelines for local authorities are applicable in this regard. The guidelines, issued in July 2005, address the handling of customer complaints as an important part of service delivery in local government. They specifically address the issue of how complaints made by elected members should be dealt with. The guidelines endorse the practice that complaints made via elected members are handled in a similar manner to those made directly by members of the public. That is so because local representatives are a conduit for complaints.

As Senators pointed out, it is unacceptable that in some cases councillors in some local authorities would move to the bottom of the queue in terms of their issues being dealt with. However, in such cases the complainant is still the member of the general public. It is in fulfilment of their elected role that councillors are the conduit of requests from members of the general public and that role should be protected and enhanced. At local authority level, the same approach is generally taken for dealing with representations from elected members as from members of the public and that approach is in accordance with each local authority’s customer charter. The customer charter was mentioned by Senator Mark Daly. It is up to each local authority to have, draft or update a customer charter and members of each local authority have the final say in that regard. It would be worthwhile for local authorities to review the contents of their customer charter on a regular basis.

Although it could be argued that the aims of the Bill are consistent with the provision of high-quality customer service, its approach is disproportionate and overly prescriptive in terms of direct legislation for the range of services provided by local authorities. I am not averse to there being a timeframe for a substantive answer to issue, but it is very rare for such a timeframe to be written into primary legislation and almost non-existent in terms of State authorities and agencies. It may, however, be possible to specify such a timeframe through regulations or guidelines.

In certain complex areas of policy, and where policy is in the course of development, there is a risk of damaging the efficient and effective delivery of services through such an overly-prescriptive approach as that proposed in the Bill. Responding to correspondence is only one of the services local authorities provide in their communities and it must not take precedence over more front-line services, although it must be dealt with. We must strike a balance between ensuring that queries are responded to and that the wide variety of services local authorities provide continue to be enhanced. The quality of answers to representations should also be enhanced. I am strongly of the view that the objectives of the Bill are best delivered through clarity in and adherence to local authorities’ customer service charters, in conjunction with the scoping exercise for the role of the local authority member upon which we are about to embark. The customer service charters are broadly compatible with the response timelines in the proposed Bill but have been set locally having regard to specific circumstances, which is crucial.

Local authorities, being autonomous bodies, are somewhat different to Departments. Although I understand and regret that certain powers were removed from local authority members around the country, some of which powers I hope to reinstate, I am somewhat averse to imposing at a national level a specific timeframe in terms of responses to queries from elected members unless those local elected representatives collectively reach agreement at member level, followed by consultation with the executive and management. There may be instances, of which I have no doubt that all present have heard examples, of local authorities falling below their standards. However, customer service plans include procedures to resolve such issues as they arise and to identify and address systemic weakness.

Furthermore, the Bill seeks to impose specific statutory standards regarding response times in a single part of the public service. The Government is of the view that any initiative along the highly-prescriptive lines proposed in the Bill would best be developed in a holistic manner for the wider public service while bearing in mind the review process which is about to commence.

The Government takes the view that the Bill is inconsistent with the approach set out by the Local Government Act 2001 (Section 237A) Regulations, SI 274 of 2003, in regard to the manner in which local authorities deal with Members of the Oireachtas. The regulations aim to ensure that Members of the Oireachtas continue to be kept closely informed about local authority issues following the abolition of the dual mandate. In the context of quality customer service for all persons in contact with local authorities, the regulations include provision for the following: the objective for each local authority when responding to Deputies and Senators to apply systems, procedures and timeframes equivalent to those used by them when communicating with local authority members; local authorities to seek to deal with requests for access to information from Deputies and Senators as promptly as possible and in accordance with a proper level of customer service; and, in dealing with correspondence by parliamentary representatives, equivalent systems, procedures and timeframes as operate for councillors should apply. It should be stressed that those regulations do not set a statutory deadline for local authorities to process representations from Members of the Oireachtas.

It is important to point out that in responding to representations received from elected members about their constituents, local authorities are bound by data protection and right to privacy provisions in respect of the residents with whom they are dealing. Consequently, great care must be taken in ensuring that personal information is not released in contravention of the legislation.

It was not possible to carry out an analysis of the cost of the Bill to local authorities within the time allowed. It appears that there may be no additional costs to the Exchequer. However, as local authorities aim to respond to correspondence within the prescriptive deadline imposed, there is a risk that the mandatory requirements proposed would inhibit efficient and effective delivery of services generally if resources had to be diverted to comply with this specific requirement, with consequential impacts on optimal staffing levels, particularly for the delivery of front-line services. Potential efficiencies could be lost, with a direct cost to those paying for local government and those relying on its services.These are the reasons the Government will not support the Bill.

I will comment further on the scope of the review exercise that is about to start. Part of the scope is the possibility of additional secretarial services. Some local authorities already provide some limited secretarial assistance. The local authority in north Dublin, for example, provides limited secretarial services for local authority members. One of the terms of reference being looked at is the extension of that service nationally and the extension of other research facilities in the context of the reserve function of local authority members, such as those for Members. The administrative support would not just be secretarial; the scope would look at the value of having a person within the local authority who is responsible for conducting primary research on behalf of local authority members. This is included in the draft terms of reference that I have already looked at.

Rather than dividing the House, because we largely agree on accurate information being provided in the fullest form that it can be within a practical timeframe, I put it to Members that the first part of the process is the full scoping exercise on the role of a councillor. In a sense, while this legislation is deemed necessary by many Members of the House, it might be putting the cart before the horse until that review is actually completed.