Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

As we gather here today, late on a Thursday evening, to discuss the final piece of business after a long week that was dominated by excessive costs of bike sheds and security huts and the justified outrage, the reality for most people concerns far less grandiose matters. They want us to deal with simple bread and butter issues that impact on their daily lives. For anyone still tuned in I would ask them to take a look at what matters to the working people. The form of government that most of our citizens have the greatest interaction with and depend on for services is local government. People depend on local authorities for services such as roads, housing, parks and grants. In my own 20-plus years of experience as a public representative I believe that by and large, the local authorities are doing a good job. I would, however, be doing a disservice to the excellent, hardworking, dedicated and capable staff if we did not recognise that there is a need for reforms and improvements. We need to highlight that a minority within our local authorities are operating below par. Those in senior roles are refusing to make decisions and are refusing to return calls to elected representatives and, more importantly, to constituents. I am extremely frustrated at the number of times my constituents cannot get a simple "Yes" or "No" answer on a query that is probably of the utmost importance to them at that particular time. Those constituents by and large turn to us as their public representatives, across all political persuasions and none, and then when we cannot get an answer to the query, it adds to their frustration. By bringing forward this simple but reformative legislation, my only desire is that the citizens we represent get a service that is efficient and transparent; one they are entitled to get as taxpayers of this country.

I will share an example that annoys me greatly every single time I think of it. I was representing two sisters. These two ladies worked all their lives. Both were in their 80s. They worked hard and they provided a small but comfortable home for themselves. In 2022, they noticed a crack in the gable wall of their house. They sought the advice of a plasterer who told them it needed to be repaired because it was causing serious dampness in their home. He advised them that they may be eligible to apply for the housing aid for the elderly. I acknowledge today that the Government has taken very positive steps in increasing the grant amount and raising the limit of the income someone can have to qualify for this grant.

Back in 2022, these two ladies applied for this grant and were refused. They sought a review and it was subsequently refused. On their behalf, I then said that we would have to write to the director of services at the end of 2022. To my mind, it was the wrong decision. I looked back at my emails last night and on 21 February 2023 I had received a reply from the Minister, by way of parliamentary question. The reply stated that grant qualifying works comprise essential works, which make a property habitable, including structural repairs or improvements. "Bingo, we are in luck, the ladies are going to get their crack repaired", I thought. On Friday, 14 July 2023, four months later, I sent an email to the director of services reminding him about the decision that had been on his desk for more than two months. I did not realise at the time that it was actually four months. On 21 July, I still had not received a reply and I was getting more and more frustrated on behalf of the two ladies. I further reminded the director of services that the file was still on his desk. Then, on the second week of August, eight months later, I received an email telling me that the original decision had been upheld. It really annoys me how two elderly women were treated. They have worked hard all their lives, and all they wanted was to get a grant to repair a crack in the gable of their modest home. The maximum grant they were looking for at the time was €8,000. Here we had a director of services, in a very senior, well-paid position, as we all know, in the local authority and it took him eight months to give a decision which I believe was incorrect. It was a decision which delayed those ladies making a decision in terms of how they would rectify the issue in their home. I do not know whether they borrowed from the credit union or whether they spent their last bit of savings from the credit union, but they got the job done. That was no thanks to the local authority and they were delayed by more than eight months. I could add to this example but it highlights the need for time-bound decisions. There is an old saying, "What gets measured, gets done".

My Bill is designed to bring about a minor reform to the application of the public administration at local authority level and to foster more transparency and accountability. Under this Bill, a member of the public or a public representative must have received a written acknowledgement of a written request within five days of receiving it, with a substantive reply required 15 days later. The provisions of the Bill set out legitimate reasons for local authorities to refuse to give these substantive replies. If a local authority fails to provide a substantive reply, a member of the public or a public representative may complain, in writing, to the Ombudsman. I am sure that most of my colleagues in the Chamber will have read last that last year, 4,465 complaints were made to the Ombudsman. Let me point out that this was across all public services, not just local authorities. To this day, I regret that I did not make the complaint regarding the example I gave earlier on. I believe that we would see a reduction in the number of complaints to the Ombudsman if people had certainty that their case was dealt with in a time-bound manner.

The final section of the Bill relates to our chief executive officers, who have very significant responsibilities and powers. They manage huge budgets and are responsible in ensuring that the amenities we depend on in our local authority areas and the necessary infrastructure, such as roads, housing, water and sewerage, are in place. The CEOs are public servants hired to implement national and local policy dictated by elected representatives. That is where the people have their say. They elect their local representatives at local elections and their national representatives at national elections. Our job is to devise policy and legislation. The public sector's job is to implement that.

While I fully appreciate that oversight of the role of the CEOs is primarily the responsibility of the elected councillors, I am proposing that under section 5 of the Bill the Committee of Public Accounts is given the power to compel CEOs to appear before it regarding financial procedures and audits. This will ensure that our money is well spent and that we are getting value for money. Where grants are not drawn down and in some instances, grants are returned to the Exchequer, they must justify the underspend and why the necessary investment in amenities and infrastructure has not taken place.

It is not in this legislation, but I would also see a change to our annual meetings with Oireachtas Members and senior executives. The law stipulates that they should be held at least once a year. Both of the local authorities I deal with implement that to the letter of the law. There is nothing prohibiting us from meeting twice a year or even every quarter to get updates. We should be looking to move to this model. Those meetings do not need to be in committee but can be in public. This would ensure transparency and accountability.

This Bill only deals with response time, ensuring efficiency and transparency at local authority level. However, I believe that if it is adopted - and I hope the Government's intention is not to oppose it - there is an opportunity to implement reforms like this across the public service. I know that until now An Bord Pleanála was not subject to time-bound decisions. That will change with the planning Act.

I mention a young couple, with whom I had been working, who were granted planning permission to build their first family home but a neighbour felt that they should have been able to buy the site ahead of this couple and appealed the decision to An Bord Pleanála, with no justifiable reason. This was after the couple waiting 18 months to get the necessary permission to build a family home. We cannot stand over the likes of this.

We all deal with issues with the HSE and medical cards. If the HSE writes to an applicant seeking further information it stipulates that the applicant must reply within 21 days or the application is deemed to be closed. The applicant is not told about any similar time constraint on the HSE replying to them about their application for a medical card. Social welfare queries are similar. My colleague, Deputy Durkan, often raises the issue of the length of time that social welfare appeals can sometimes take. Again, the person must submit the extra documentation within 21 days or the application is deemed to be withdrawn. There is no similar time limit for how long it takes a person to get an answer.

This Bill is about local authorities but there is an opportunity across our public services to introduce the necessary reforms. I have been a public representative for more than 20 years; seven years at local authority level, 14 years as a TD, during which I was honoured to serve as Minister of State for two years. I have worked with some of the best. I have met public servants who are competent, capable officials who want nothing only to implement good quality public service. There is a minority in comparable positions who would not last in the private sector. The public deserves an efficient, effective and transparent public service. I believe this Bill is a small step in achieving that.

Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputy Troy, a person who has, as he has said, vast experience in public life, for proposing this important draft legislation. I also thank the other Members who will contribute to this debate for their interest in the question of local authority public administration. As Minister of State with responsibility for local government and planning, I am particularly interested in this Bill and the questions it raises.

Over ten years ago, we started what is perhaps the most significant process of reform of local government in the State's history. Since then, many of the policies set down in the 2012 publication, Putting People First: Action Programme for Effective Local Government, have been given legislative effect through the Local Government Reform Act 2014. This allowed us to effect a number of reforms that aimed to place the citizen at the heart of what local government does and to enhance the role of local authorities in a number of areas, including economic development, economic support and climate action. In a number of respects, the Bill can therefore be seen to be consistent with these reforms towards effective public service and this is to be welcomed. For this reason, the Government has decided not to oppose the Bill, even though it requires further careful consideration.

On the Bill's provisions concerning queries from public representatives, I note that this is a statutory requirement of regulations made under section 237A of the Local Government Act 2001, as amended in 2003, which require that local authorities have arrangements in place to provide information to local Oireachtas Members at regular briefings. These regulations were put in place when the dual mandate was abolished to ensure that Members of these Houses would have the same access to information from local authorities as local authority elected members. This was considered particularly important to assist Members of Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann in their local representative role. My understanding and that of my Department is that local authorities comply with the requirements of these regulations, with some providing an even higher level of service than that prescribed.

Given the wide range of services that local authorities provide and the very large number of customers who interact with the services, it is occasionally the case that people who make a query to a local authority or who follow a complaints procedure are not satisfied with the answer or outcome they receive. In such cases, members of the public or public representatives who are dissatisfied with the administration of services, once they have exhausted the complaints process of the relevant local authority, already have recourse to the Office of the Ombudsman. In addition to requesting that customers have exhausted the complaints process of the relevant public body, the Ombudsman also requests that the customer has allowed the service provider up to 42 days to respond and that he or she has received a final response to the complaint before escalating it to the Ombudsman. The Bill goes a step further and provides that, where a local authority fails to comply with the requirement to reply within a specific timeline, a correspondent may bypass the local authority's complaint process and lodge a complaint against the local authority with the Ombudsman. Care must be taken that, in providing such direct recourse to the Ombudsman, the Bill will not risk an increase in relatively minor complaints, which would be impractical for the Ombudsman to handle and which would remove the Ombudsman's focus from more serious complaints. Therefore, the local complaints procedure should be followed in the first instance.

Regarding the Bill's proposal to bring local authority chief executives before the Committee of Public Accounts, it is important to recall the role of local government in recognition of Article 28A of Bunreacht na hÉireann. The statutory independence of local authorities in the performance of their duties is further set down in section 63 of the Local Government Act 2001. At this point, it is not clear how this Bill's objectives are in line with the constitutional and legislative independence of local government or how the independent role of local elected councillors, to whom chief executives are currently answerable, is to be considered. Indeed, the primary oversight and governance of local authorities rests with the elected council. These important points need to be addressed as the Bill progresses.

I remind colleagues that the Committee of Public Accounts does not examine the spending of individual local authorities, which are audited by the Local Government Audit Service rather than the Comptroller and Auditor General. The National Oversight and Audit Commission is the national independent oversight body for the local government sector in Ireland. I attended NOAC's tenth anniversary last week and I recommend that colleagues review the vast amount of information on its website, including all of its detailed scrutiny reports on local authorities.

I further add that Ireland is a party to the Council of Europe's European Charter of Local Self-Government, which requires us to ensure robust independent local government in the State. Parties to the charter are subject to periodic monitoring visits to assess compliance towards meeting its requirements. Ireland's review was completed last May. While there are many positives in the final monitoring visit report of October last year, the monitoring team criticised our centralised system of government stating that "on the whole, administrative supervision of local government is extensive and detailed, and there are no signs that central supervision is about to be relaxed". Such concerns will need to be addressed in the next Stages of debate on the Bill to ensure that the independence of local government and the vital role of local authority elected members, who, like those of us in these Houses, are accountable to the electorate, are recognised.

I thank Deputy Troy for initiating this Bill and this debate. As advised, the Government is not opposing the Bill. I look forward to further debate.

Denise Mitchell (Dublin Bay North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am sharing time with my colleague, Deputy Ó Murchú. I thank Deputy Troy for moving this Bill. We will support its progress to Committee Stage, where we can analyse it further. It takes an unfortunately necessary "big stick" approach to how politicians and the public interact with local authorities. We all know the experience of making representations for constituents and how slow some areas can be to provide a proper response. We all know of examples. My staff and I have spent weeks upon weeks following up with local authorities just to get a response. It can be very frustrating for the constituents when you spend a number of weeks explaining to them that you are still waiting on a reply from the local authority. As we all know, these can be complex and time-sensitive cases. As Deputy Troy said, people usually come to our offices when they are under real pressure. We all know the staff in local authorities are doing their best. I acknowledge the hard-working staff in my constituency, particularly those in our local area offices, who always do their very best. However, we would all agree that the resources at their disposal are very limited.

As the Bill stands, local authorities would be required to provide substantive replies within a set time period. That is balanced by the local authorities' right to refuse in certain instances, which is sensible. Section 3 may need some work on Committee Stage to make it a bit more pointed and less open to interpretation.

I welcome section 4 that brings in the right to access the Ombudsman where local authorities have either refused or failed to provide a substantive reply. It can be highly frustrating, as I have said, to wait weeks upon weeks for a reply and then to receive a copy-and-paste response that leaves you none the wiser and you are still left waiting to get a proper answer to the actual question you have asked. It is good, therefore, that there is a route to pursue a proper answer.

Perhaps on Committee Stage we could tease out section 5 a bit further. It seems very wide-ranging and I am conscious we have 41 local authorities and the PAC probably has the biggest workload of any committee in the Houses.

As I said at the beginning, it is probably an unfortunate reflection of the experiences of public and elected representatives that this Bill is even required. I imagine it will take some time for this to find its feet but it should push local authorities towards a change of attitude in their role and responsibility to those who rely on their services. There is a much wider debate to be had about local authorities and how local government operates more generally, but that is a discussion for another day. As Deputy Troy has said, this is a minor change to address a particular problem in the here and now. This legislation, on the face of it, will do exactly what it says on the tin. I look forward to discussing the Bill further on Committee Stage on another date.

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is worthwhile bringing this Bill forward. Deputy Mitchell has already stated there may be a need to deal with certain sections on Committee Stage and referred to the large body of work already in front of the PAC, but we are looking for some means to find a level of accountability. In fairness, Deputy Troy has detailed some of the issues. Some of us elected representatives have been councillors, but many of us would deal with council officials and staff and from time to time get through a great deal of work. At other times we would not necessarily be able to do so and we might have an issue with the funding of local government and its powers. If we were dealing with local elected representatives, they would talk about their lack of powers. Again, I get that this is for another day and another conversation, but, unfortunately, I think it is all connected. From time to time, however, we need to ensure we have the systems in play when the public, or politicians on behalf of the public and their constituents, are trying to get necessary projects and works done.

Even where there are difficulties, once people can hear the truth, that makes a difference. Even if there is an issue concerning funding but that funding is going to happen, it makes a great difference once people can get that element of clarity. That is also to accept that the local authorities, no more than Government agencies or Departments, can at times get issues that are trivial and vexatious. We are not talking about that but about substantial pieces of work that need to be done to deliver for people and into their lives. A great many of us would deal with local authorities in situations where our constituents have come to us seeking to ensure they can get things like adaptation grants for older people or those with disabilities to allow these people to stay in their homes, be they council houses or private houses. If we are talking about older people, these grants can give them some money to allow them to stay in their homes and allow their families to have a better set of circumstances. There is, however, another set of issues relating to the HSE.

In fairness, seeing as the Minister of State is present, we had a discussion concerning this issue recently and we spoke about the review. I am glad to see the announcement of increases in the grant limits by over 30% and in the income thresholds by 25% for those applying for support under the housing adaptation grants for older people and those with disabilities. Am I full sure this will deal with some of the constituents who come to all of us? Probably not, but it is a better set of circumstances. I also accept the fact that costs have gone up. As much as it is a deviation, and it is not the first time I have deviated from the topic at hand, I would appreciate it if the Minister of State was able to give some indication of the timeline for when the statutory instruments will be signed in this regard.

On Deputy Troy's legislation, while it may need finessing, it is an absolute necessity. It also, on some level, fits into that space where local authority members, in particular, would state they do not have the same sort of powers as the executive. I know that at times there are different relationships in different counties in how things operate. It can depend on a chief executive or certain directors of services. We will all have good and not-so-good stories to tell, but it is about ensuring we have a system of governance and a system of accountability that can ensure it.

We could probably talk about other agencies. I imagine everyone would like to have a conversation on other issues, whether about Irish Water or other bodies. At one stage, I would have come to this Chamber not always happy with the communication I received from Irish Water. Probably through some of my endeavours in this Chamber, however, I believe my personal relationship with Irish Water, from the perspective of getting results and the facts as we want and need them, has improved. In some cases, we all know it is just about ensuring there is a person you can contact to make sure the information is forthcoming. As I said, whether it is the local authorities, Irish Water or Departments, once people can get the truth about the issue, it can make a big difference. There will be times when you need to be able to deliver a solution, some of which would require a greater level of funding and resources. If it is possible to get to the truth of an issue, however, it makes a big difference. There are also many powers local authorities do not have. I do not know how many times I have spoken this week about not only organised crime but also disorganised and chaotic crime. Local authorities do not have the powers required in this regard no more than Tusla or, I believe, An Garda Síochána necessarily have the tools to deal with these chaotic scenarios.

Again, and not for the first time, I may have deviated. I really welcome the opportunity to speak on this. What Deputy Troy is attempting to do is absolutely necessary and is about ensuring we can provide a service to the public. The sooner we can see something like this in front of a committee, the sooner we can finesse those parts that need it.

Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputy Troy for proposing this Bill. We must put the citizens relying on local government and those we represent at the heart of everything we do. The desire here is to ensure the large range of services provided by local government can be delivered more effectively and efficiently. This legislation is to be welcomed in that regard.

I am also sure, and I am sure my colleagues in this House will agree, that local government provides an enormous and diverse range of services and functions. At the last count, that figure was in excess 1,100 services and functions being provided to customers and to citizens. The Local Government Management Agency provides details of all these excellent services in its service catalogue. We recently launched the localgov.ie website, which is a fantastic resource for many people when accessing these services across many areas, from housing to planning, environmental, community, arts and culture, leisure and recreation and active travel.

While the Bill seeks to impose a blanket statutory limit of 20 days for local authorities to respond to queries, given the number and variety of local government services, I would caution against any such timeline being too prescriptive. I am sure we can work with Deputy Troy on that. We have many excellent customer service initiatives already in place across local government. To Deputy Ó Murchú's point around the housing adaptation grant, which was an important announcement today, I acknowledge the work of my predecessor, the Minister of State, Deputy Kieran O'Donnell and the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, in that regard. As was said, we have increased the thresholds and increased the grant levels by up to 30%. We would expect a revision of the regulations to implement the new recommendations to happen early in 2025. We hope the new scheme would be up and running in quarter 1 of 2025.

Reverting to the Bill in respect of customer server charters and the formal complaints procedure which is already in place, details of which are readily available for members of the public on their local authority website, the objectives of such a measure aligning with those of the Bill and adherence to these charters and established channels achieves the same aims. I certainly will be open to further understanding how we can comply with these obligations, strengthen them and go above and beyond. With regard to recourse to the Ombudsman, a highly effective organ of the State, where they are dissatisfied with the administration of local authority services and have exhausted all procedures of the relative local authority, the Bill seeks to give them a direct route on the expiry of the statutory 20-day timeline. The Bill will need to balance the proposal against the potential impact it may have upon the resources of the Ombudsman to ensure there is not over-duplication and that office does not become overwhelmed by relatively minor local authority issues. This could distract from an already burdened workload.

I had the opportunity to sit on the Committee of Public Accounts for the past four years and have no doubt that, as the watchdog of public finances, it is extremely important in holding public bodies to account and ensuring the best outcomes for the taxpayer. I would stress that there is an appreciation and respect for similar roles that our elected members perform within their own elective chambers. Their primary oversight and governance is within their local authorities. Certainly we need to review the independence which is contained and protected in primary legislation. This critical point will need to be addressed within this Bill also. I am sure everyone will be in agreement that further discussion on this Bill will need to take into account considerations and concerns of the Council of Europe regarding central supervision of local government in Ireland in its recent monitoring report on Ireland's adherence to the European charter on local self-government. As I said earlier, we will not oppose the Bill and we look forward to further discussion on Committee Stage.

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister of State and the previous two speakers from Sinn Féin who contributed. It is welcome that there is broad agreement on the objectives of this Bill. Of course, when you are in opposition or on the back bench of Government, you do not have the wherewithal to ensure that everything in the drafting of the Bill is to the standard of one brought forward by the Government. It is welcome that there is no one opposing it. It is welcome that there is cross-party acknowledgement of a need for this Bill. I hope the Government does not use a tactic that can be used at times of not opposing but still not embracing it. I hope the Minister of State will embrace this Bill. I hope there will be time allocated in the relevant committee to tease it out further, to improve and enhance it and take on board some of the concerns the Minister of State and previous speakers have expressed. That is what Committee Stage of a Bill is about, anyhow. It is about improving a Bill.

The Minister of State referred to the briefings that are currently prescribed in law in respect of Oireachtas Members and the management teams within local authorities. Personally I think annually is too infrequent. I note what the Minister of State said, that the Bill provides for more frequent briefings and that annual is the minimum. My experience, unfortunately, is that many local authorities are just doing this annually. The Minister of State said he is aware of some local authorities that are doing it more frequently. I would like to see where they are. Certainly Westmeath used to do it biannually but it slipped out to annually. I do think there is a need for more frequent engagement. We engage with them the whole time as public representatives but there is a need for a more formalised, frequent engagement between Oireachtas Members and the senior management teams of the local authorities. Perhaps that is something we can provide for on Committee Stage.

The Minister of State is right and it would be my last desire that we would make the Ombudsman's job more difficult or heap more work on that office through this Bill. I think it would have the opposite effect. If people were getting their answers in a more timely fashion and were getting a substantive reply, not a copy-and-paste reply, if they knew why a decision was taken in a certain instance, it might alleviate the need to appeal to the Ombudsman. It might have the opposite effect to what the Minister of State thinks in terms of overworking the ombudsman. I think it would reduce it. Ultimately, if these bodies do need greater resources and staff, we need to provide them.

The ultimate objective and core intention of this Bill is to ensure that the citizens who pay their taxes and whom we represent can receive a public service that is efficient, effective and transparent. That is all I am looking for. I think we can all unite on that. That is what they deserve and this Bill goes some way towards achieving it. I thank the Minister of State for coming in and giving his honest opinion. I thank the two Members opposite for supporting the Bill also.