Committee Reports > List of Committees > Joint > 1998 > Committee on Environment and Local Government > Review - Planning Legislation

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Committee on Environment and Local Government

Dé Céadaoin, 28 Eanáir 1998.

Wednesday, 28 January 1998.

The Committee met at 2.30 p.m.

Members Present:

Deputy Jackie Healy-Rae in the Chair.

Chairman: Item 1 is the minutes of the previous meeting. Are they agreed to? Agreed. I welcome the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey. He has a busy schedule and I am delighted he has facilitated the committee.

Minister for the Environment and Local Government (Mr. Dempsey): Thank you Chairman for your invitation to attend the committee. I am delighted to have the opportunity to outline to the committee the policies I am pursuing and I look forward to a positive and constructive relationship with it. As my predecessor, Deputy Howlin, will know the Department has a broad remit. It can be said of the Department that, directly or indirectly through local authorities, it is in touch with the citizens’ everyday lives. My aim for the Department is to ensure that the services for which it is responsible are geared towards the requirements of the next century. Meeting that aim will present challenges.

Like other Departments the policy framework within which the Department of the Environment and Local Government works is set out in broad terms in the Action Programme for the Millennium. We may not have time today to go into the fine detail of policy proposals. I intend to examine the main areas of the Department’s responsibilities and to outline the policy proposals under each of those.

Chairman: I appreciate that the Minister’s time is limited as he will have to open a Second Stage debate in the Dáil. Perhaps the Minister should address the committee and we will have some questions afterwards. It should take about an hour.

Deputy Dempsey: Thank you Chairman. I wanted to be careful not to take up all the available time because I am sure the members will have views to express.

The first area of policy I will outline is local government reform. It is an important part of the Department’s portfolio. At local authorities meetings around the country I have said that the change in the title of the Department was more than just a change in name. I have a deep commitment to the development of local government. I meant to signal that by changing the name of the Department. I also meant to signal, as I have done over the past six months, the commitment by this Government and me, personally, to a comprehensive reform of local government over the next number of years. Anybody who has heard me speaking at local authority meetings and elsewhere knows that I have placed a heavy emphasis on this since taking office. This is appropriate in the centenary of local government - 1898 was the year of the Local Government Act and 1899 was the year in which most local authorities came into being.

It is important that we have a good look at the system. This process was started by the previous Government. To a certain extent, it was advanced during that period of government and I hope to advance it even further over the next 12 to 18 months. I suppose all previous efforts at reform, particularly over the past 20 or 30 years, were bedevilled by the fact that Governments changed so fast and there was a tendency by one Government to ditch what the previous Government had done. All in all, local government was treated as a political football.

When the previous Government introduced Better Local Government I acknowledged that it was a reasonable attempt advance the cause of reform of local government. I disagreed with one aspect of it in particular, that is the funding proposals, but I think I gave a fairly positive response to the other aspects of the proposals. I have no hesitation in saying here that most of those proposals will be advanced by this Government because the four pillars of the reform programme outlined at that stage, which were enhancing local government, focusing on the customer, funding and efficiency for local government, and the organisational changes, are all ones to which I would subscribe. These are areas which need to be reformed and advanced.

The aim of local democracy, which I will acknowledge was an aim of my predecessor, was to enhance the influence of the councillor or local public representative, and that it is certainly my aim. The first step in that has been taken through the introduction of strategic policy committees, where the important role of the elected member in policy making will be emphasised and reemphasised. With the City and County Management (Amendment) Act, 1955, the split was made finally between the executive and reserve functions of members and that was a sound policy. However, over the years due to the increased workload and the complexity of legislation the councillors’ role as an initiator of policy has fallen somewhat by the wayside.

The SPCs will help to restore the balance in favour of the local public representatives. Obviously, they will also allow for participation by outside bodies and organisations in the local government system, so we are talking in this case of participatory democracy and the setting up of a cabinet style local government by the chairpersons of these committees coming together and forming a cabinet in local government. That is a major step toward enhancing the influence of councillors on policy.

With regard to other areas, to which I will only just refer because they form part of the policy of advancing local democracy, the local elections will take place in June 1999, as already announced. Between now and then, a boundary commission or commissions will be set up shortly to look at the electoral boundaries within each of the county council areas. They will report within a relatively short timescale so that any work which needs to be done in that regard will be done in plenty of time to give all parties and individuals an idea of their electoral boundaries.

Another major area is the question of local government and the growth of local development agencies. The policy in this regard is that local government and local development will be integrated. Both systems will be brought together to make the local government system more participatory. That will be in place for the year 2000.

The second area is customer service. Anywhere I have gone I have emphasised customer service. If I was to sum it up in a couple of sentences, I would say that what we must do in local government must be done at national level also, that is to put the focus on the needs of the customer or client not on the needs of the organisation. There is a perception among many people in organisations that the system is there for them rather than for delivering services to the public. That is a message I want to get across to local government. I have pointed out that there will be performance indicators, and that I am seeking to have local authorities decentralise their services to various area offices. As part of that concept, we are introducing the idea of one stop shops for which we will receive £1 million this year to start a pilot programme to deliver local authorities and the other State services, by agreement, to the public from one campus if at all possible. Those are the areas which we will pursue. Announcements, particularly in regard to the one stop shops, will be made in the coming weeks.

On funding and efficiency, I made a major announcement on funding about a week ago. The local government fund, which will consist of £590 million in 1999, has been set up. It starts on 1 January. It will consist of the proceeds of motor tax, which we estimate will be about £320 million in 1999, and Exchequer funding of £270 million. That funding will be ring-fenced. Nobody will be able to interfere with it. It will be guaranteed in a way in which funding for local government has not been guaranteed previously in that it will increase automatically with the CPI. In addition, and more importantly, any extra obligations imposed by Government on the local government system must be taken into account and the updated figure of £270 million must be increased to meet the increased costs.

In addition, we are introducing new modern accounting systems to the local authority system. We are trying to devise a new system to indicate performance. On foot of the legislation which was passed last year, value for money audits will be strengthened, they will become compulsory and they will be made public in future years. We have provided for extra funding but we have also put in place extra accountability through value for money audits, as is only right.

There has been some concern expressed, particularly by urban authorities, about the abolition of small urban district councils or town commissioners. I want to reiterate the stated policy of the Government and the previous Government, that there is no agenda to abolish local town councils or urban councils except by changing the names “urban district councils” and “town commissioners” to a common name of “town councils”. The county and city authorities will remain the basic unit of local government, which is another firm commitment we have made. There is a need - which is accepted by all, I think - to examine how town local government may be improved and enhanced. We are looking at that to see what town authorities can best do and the constraints which are placed on them. In that regard, the report of the Lacey commission is being closely examined and adhered to.

The idea of new organisational models for local government, such as the partnership which will exist with local development companies after the year 2000, are also being examined. The devolution commission will be reactivated. We are considering what aspects of devolution might first be tackled by that committee and we intend to give it a sharp and focused brief. Once it deliberates and we receive its report, we will implement what it suggests and give it further work, rather than having a wide devolution agenda producing vague reports. That is not to criticise the first two reports, which were well received by everyone.

A comprehensive programme of local government reform is being put in place and studies on equalisation of funding, needs and resources are ongoing. We will not be able to implement a reform programme overnight but things are happening and will happen. The programme will be driven over the next three to four years.

Finally on this area, while it may take time to change the system, local government has been at a crossroads for a considerable time. Many people have tried over the years to make changes but they must come, because otherwise the system will perish, it will not be as effective as it should, and will not meet local democratic needs. I am committed to the programme of reform because if we do not get democracy working at local level, there will be serious difficulties for democracy generally in the future.

Turning to the other huge area within the Department, the environment, the policy of the Government, the Department and myself is that concern for the environment will be central to all Government policy decisions. We will have an integrated environment policy which will be implemented in partnership and consultation with local communities and interested bodies. There is a wide recognition that without suitable mechanisms to ensure sustainable development, continuing strong economic growth has a real potential to erode our environmental quality and deplete our natural resources. Dublin Deputies in particular know about the pressure points already emerging - energy consumption has increased, road transport has grown with consequent congestion and agriculture has intensified. These pressure points must be addressed. Economic growth and changing lifestyles have many environmental impacts, including increased emissions of greenhouse gases, increasing water pollution and growth in waste generation.

The role of the Department and myself is to lead and co-ordinate the development and implementation of progressive policies for the environment and sustainable development. My key priorities in implementing that policy are to secure, first, appropriate structures and mechanisms for sustainable development; second, to put in place mechanisms to ensure effective protection; and third, to ensure pro-active information and rising awareness of environmental issues locally and nationally.

In keeping with those priorities, the structures we have started to put in place or to revive include a national environment partnership programme, which will be established in mid-year. We are currently receiving submissions for the programme and will hold a seminar at the end of March to discuss the setting up of that forum. The local Agenda 21 network will also be developed and pursued with each local authority. A green network of Government Departments will be established at assistant secretary level - a higher level than ever before, which is important. The environmental audit of Government Departments and public bodies will be pursued vigorously through intensive implementation of The Green Government Guide. It is my intention to build up and continue to resource as much as possible the Environmental Protection Agency, because I see it as important in the fight to protect the environment. We also must recognise that the tax system can be used to achieve environmental policy objectives. Work towards greening the tax system is important and I want it to be extended and taken much more seriously than heretofore.

I will mention later the follow up to climate change and the Kyoto protocol, because Members have a particular interest in that. In other areas of the environmental sector, air quality data are currently being assessed with a view to early decisions on priority towns for the purposes of extending the bituminous coal ban. In water pollution and care of water resources, the emphasis is being place on the implementation of the Department’s catchment-based strategy on eutrophication. As Members are aware, we have a discussion document and a consultancy report on coastal zone management, which was launched last December. We intend to have a public seminar on the policy options during March.

On waste, towards the middle of the year we intend to define Government objectives in a national waste management policy statement. It may be somewhat surprising that we are only defining it now, after the Waste Management Act went through the Houses. However, in practice we found that waste management has always been the responsibility of local authorities and the Act reflected that. I feel there is a need to give a lead at a national level and for that reason I want to pull some of the strands together to assist local authorities and offer them direct policy statements, particularly at a time when they are drawing up their waste strategy plans. We will have that published by mid-year.

A related area is that of litter, where the emphasis will be given to education awareness activities directed at local level. The Litter Pollution Act will help because of the increased penalties and wider scope of the legislation but local authorities need better resources in this area. There is a huge need for better enforcement all round. This has to be a priority and must be tackled. Education and enforcement are absolutely vital and that is the approach we intend to adopt.

Turning generally to environmental awareness and information, the one message that everyone here should have received, and probably has, is worth restating; no one Government Minister or Department can possibly ensure environmental protection on his or her own. No Government or local authority on its own can ensure that. The message must go out that all sectors of society share a responsibility with regard to environmental protection. A key objective to be reflected in the national environment partnership forum and the green network is to carry concern for the environment into other public policies. For that reason I am committed to informed public discussion on environmental concerns - whether through the EPA, the DOE or ENFO - and improved access to information on the environment, including an appeals mechanism in line with the Freedom of Information Act. We are committed to a review of ENFO policies and priorities as well as continued practical support to NGOs through the environment partnership fund. That is a general overview of the environment area.

The Kyoto environment summit was an important juncture in environmental policy, not just nationally but globally. As regards the follow up to it, while there was dissatisfaction with some aspects of the Kyoto agreement, having spent the best part of a week at the conference, I think the fact that any agreement was reached at all was a minor miracle. I want to place on the record of this Committee, as I have already done on the record of the House, my gratitude and admiration for the work of the small Irish delegation that attended the summit from the Department of the Environment and the Department of Public Enterprise. I also admire the role that was played at Kyoto by the EU and particularly the UK as incoming EU President. It is important to note that they worked tirelessly to reach an agreement. It is not a perfect agreement or protocol but it gives a strong signal as to where we are going. Because of that, nationally as well as at EU level, the key priority for the Department and for me as Minister, over the next six months, will be to follow up on the Kyoto conference. It will be an area of policy concern for quite a long time into the future.

Some of the issues that must be discussed in relation to the Kyoto conference, include the EU’s internal burden sharing. As you know, the EU negotiating position at Kyoto was for a reduction of 15 per cent in three main greenhouse gas emissions, on the 1990 levels, by the year 2010. In that context, our indicative figure was 15 per cent plus a growth limitation of 15 per cent in the same period. Eventually, a reduction of 8 per cent was achieved for the EU by the years 2008 and 2012, and six gases were involved rather than three.

One of the areas that we will be discussing - and hopefully coming to an agreement on in the EU over the next six months - is our particular burden in that area and the internal EU arrangements necessary to achieve the target. I have already indicated to the Dáil that I intend to adhere to the level of emission implicit in our indicative target. I have made it quite clear that we intend to pursue that. In reaching agreements and finalising matters in this area, we need to have much more data. Relevant Government Departments have been requested to provide the data as a matter of urgency. Consultancies have been commissioned by my Department and the Department of Public Enterprise to report on how we might achieve the targets we have set for ourselves.

As there was also some question about this in the House, I want to reiterate that the study I referred to will address all greenhouse gases and all sectors of the economy. It will also cover a range of policy options. Contrary to what was stated previously, there are no exclusions in the policy options area. It is open to the consultants to make their recommendations. I am sure the integrated action we need to take across the different Departments will take place and we will meet our obligations under the protocol.

I am conscious of time, Chairman, I will quickly run through the other areas I want to deal with, rather than going into a huge amount of detail. One of them concerns roads, which is of particular interest to yourself.

Deputy Dukes: Will you explain how much we have got?

Deputy Dempsey: We will look after Kildare as well, Deputy Dukes.

The principal policy areas we are pursuing include: an acceleration of national and non-national roads’ programmes; road planning and financing post-1999, which is something we have to address seriously; the area of economic pressures and urban traffic congestion; and road safety and regulatory issues. Without going into huge detail on any of these matters, the NRA’s national roads programme was published recently. It is intended that the non-national roads programme will be published on 9 February. As Members will be aware, we have increased by £30 million the amount of money available for non-national roads. There will be significant increases all round in that particular area.

I mentioned traffic congestion. In dealing with that problem, we are reviewing the DTI strategy and we hope to have interim findings by mid-1998. In view of the serious increase in road accidents, including deaths, in recent years, a committee is due to report shortly on a national roads safety strategy.

The Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, spoke to the Committee recently about housing. I wish to reiterate the initiatives in this area that are currently under way. There is obvious concern about house prices and a study by Peter Bacon and Associates will address the factors giving rise to the increases. I have also made available a fund of £15 million over three years to provide an accelerated programme for servicing land in areas of high development and areas where there are perceived housing shortages. The Minister of State outlined the programme in relation to social housing output and the changes he has made regarding that. Another area of interest is the commencement of the project for the regeneration of Ballymun.

The travelling community’s accommodation will be dealt with by a Bill that the Minister of State will be bringing before the House shortly. I am sure it will be fully discussed by Members.

Homelessness is another area that is receiving attention from the Government. It is interned to have a separate assessment of homelessness considered in the context of the new assessment of housing needs.

The Bill on the Referendum Information Commission has been published and will be discussed shortly in the House. A discussion document on a review of the electoral system is currently in preparation. A discussion document on the electoral system is currently being prepared. The constituency commission, which is always of great interest to Members, is due to report by the end of March. I will bring legislation to the House immediately after that to implement its findings. I also mentioned the local government commission.

I understand the committee will meet to discuss the planning review. We are in the middle of that process at present. Department officials will be available to brief members fully on what has happened so far. They will be interested to hear the committee’s views on whatever improvements are necessary in the planning area. Members are also aware that a planning Bill will be introduced. If Members wish to ask me questions, I will try to respond to them.

Chairman: I appeal to members to avoid repetition because we only have approximately 18 minutes before the Minister leaves.

Deputy Dukes: I am sure the Minister will understand if I keep my questions until next Tuesday to save time. I welcome the Minister to the committee and I wish him well in his undertaking, although it seems to be a triumph of hope over reality. I hope we have an opportunity for more detailed discussions with the Minister on individual policy areas and on the review of the planning process, once we receive a briefing from Department officials. I would also like to discuss the Minister’s plans for local government funding.

It is a little disingenuous of the Minister to tell us that that change in the name of his Department signals a new importance being attached to local government. We have been through that too many times. The Department used to be called the Department of Local Government. It was then thought more fashionable to call it the Department of the Environment but that was considered incomplete, so it was changed to the Department of the Environment and Local Government. The same thing has happened with what used to be the Department of Justice. It has gone through several transmogrifications and is now the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. We should pass a constitutional amendment stopping Taoisigh from making cockamamie changes in the names of Departments and start accepting the principle that what they do is important not what type of politically correct name we give them.

Senator D. Kiely: The Deputy could learn a few lessons from me.

Deputy Dukes: We could learn a few lessons from history. Every Taoiseach should have hobbles put on them to stop that type of nonsense.

I would like the Minister to expand a little on his plans to restore to councillors their role as initiators of policy. I have not yet seen any evidence of that. The SPCs will not do that and the interesting proposal to introduce a government style to local authorities will not change anything. Unless and until local authorities have a substantial measure of discretion in how they spend money and functions are moved from the manager of the local authority to the councillors, all this is window dressing. It is unreal to talk about these SPCs and participation by local groups as an expansion of the role of councillors.

The Minister will be aware that many members of local authorities - I speak as someone who has never been a member of a local authority and who has no intention of trying to become one - feel sore at what successive Governments have done in this regard. Over a period of years we have systematically stripped local authorities of autonomy in their funding and elected members of any political role in deciding on policy issues. Because there is a need to meet requirements articulated at local level, we have invented numerous schemes to fund self-appointed members of different community groups. I am not criticising them because they are well motivated people who have done excellent work. However, we have created the impression that if we want to get something done at local level we must set up a community group to do it because there is no point going to locally elected councillors who do not have the money or the power to do it. Until we address that issue, reforming local government will not make any difference.

Senator D. Kiely: It is easy to know the Deputy has never been a member of a local authority.

Deputy Dukes: I have no intention of becoming a member of a local authority but I have great respect for members who articulate those needs instead of sitting at the opposite side of a committee chamber doing nothing about it and expecting the Minister to give us conventional wisdom without it being challenged.

It is idle to talk about focusing on customers’ needs and improving the delivery of services to the customer until we have real democracy in our local councils. Otherwise, we are only talking about how efficiently various things are done in ways which are bureaucratic rather than democratic. Until we see action in this area, I am left cold and underwhelmed by everything the Minister said recently in terms of one-stop-shops, etc.

Does the Minister’s announcement of 12 January mean that between now and the summer there will be a 3 per cent obligatory increase in motor tax followed by a further obligatory 3 per cent increase next January? The Minister is doing something a little different from what he criticised a year ago last December. At that stage he said a 6 per cent increase in motor tax over three years was excessive and could not be done. Now we will have a 6 per cent increase in a period of nine months. The Minister said the first 3 per cent will come in as soon as the legislation is passed and the next 3 per cent will come into effect in January 1999, at a time when the only new element I can see in this allegedly new funding programme for local government, £125 million, to be distributed between 28 county councils, five county borough councils and God knows how many urban councils is to be made available as the first indication of the Minister’s ring-fenced inflation-proofed largesse. Could the Minister indicate when we will see his proposals for equalisation in funding which was also mentioned in his announcement of 12 January?

When the Minister publishes the non-national roads programme on 9 February, will he include the figures for the accelerated programme for non-national roads which operated for 1996 and 1997 and those for 1998 which he was unable to give me before Christmas? Could he also undertake to include in his publication of 9 February the plans for the remainder of that special programme period so that local authorities will be able to plan their use of funds more rationally than at present?

Chairman: Does the Minister wish to reply to those questions now?

Senator D. Kiely: It would be fair if all Members had the opportunity to question the Minister. He could reply afterwards.

Chairman: That is up to the Minister.

Senator D. Kiely: If the Minister wishes to answer questions from Deputy Dukes he will be here until 8 p.m.

Chairman: We will take the questions but I cannot give a guarantee that the Minister will be able to answer them.

Deputy O. Mitchell: I wish to echo many of the points made by Deputy Dukes. However, I wish to concentrate on local government funding. I welcome the changes which the Minister has made in that they guarantee income to local authorities. That income might even be slightly larger. However, what was needed was not better income but real local democracy. This means ensuring accountability at local level. The system introduced ignored and worsened the situation in respect of observing the fundamental principles of local democracy which ensure local accountability and which the Minister seems so anxious to introduce.

The first of these principles is the ability of local authorities to raise locally what they spend locally. The road tax funding is completely contrary to that principle. This tax is raised at a rate determined by the Minister and is allocated by the Minister. It bears no relation to the amount of the tax collected locally, even though this impression was given by the media. This trend was reinforced by the capping of commercial rates. I cannot understand why the Minister chose to do this. It was based on the assumption that locally elected representatives had no appreciation that rates needed to be kept down. If the Minister treats local representatives as silly children who do not understand the basic principles of economics this does not inspire those who have a huge commitment to local democracy and potential for delivering change where it matters. If people are treated as of they cannot make decisions then they will not make those decisions.

The second principle ignored by the Minister was the ability of local authorities to be able to order priorities in local spending - if they see certain needs they are able to respond in a flexible way. This is basic to local government yet the Minister has ring-fenced the extra money for spending on local roads. In an extreme example, this means that we must go on tarring and re-tarring local roads whether or not they need it. I am not denying that local roads need tarring but the principle is wrong. I am talking about community needs - swimming pools, public lighting - all the things which local authorities would like to respond to but are unable to because the money is ring-fenced and there is no flexibility.

I welcome the Minister’s commitment to the introduction of eco-taxes. However, the last Budget was a failed opportunity to introduce them. For example, the reduction in vehicle registration tax was the same for small and big cars. This was an opportunity to give a bigger reduction to smaller cars, encouraging people to move from larger vehicles.

I wish the Minister well in his commitment to the introduction of sustainable strategies across all policy areas. I wonder if the commitment exists across all Departments. Is the Department of Public Enterprise or the Minister for Finance as committed to this principle? If the Minister wishes to meet the Kyoto targets on emission reductions he could start taking cars off the roads in Dublin by giving Dublin Bus a larger role. This could be achieved by introducing an environmental payback subvention to Dublin Bus for its contribution to reducing congestion. That would be the single biggest measure we could introduce and it is in accordance with the DTI recommendations which the Minister says he is committed to implementing. Is it possible that the Minister for Finance is going to go along with this idea? The Minister for Public Enterprise seems to think that Dublin Bus is capable of surviving on bus fares to buy buses and meet the evident demand. I wish the Minister well but I have my doubts. Have there been cross departmental negotiations about introducing sustainable strategies and integrating them into other policy areas?

Senator E. Ryan: Does the Minister agree that, along with powers, local authorities need the concentration of the members? It is anomalous to have elected Members of the Oireachtas who are also members of local authorities. Will the Minister consider prohibiting this as it produces a dual function for Members? I have no desire to be a member of a local authority. If I did become one, I believe that I should cease to be a Member of the Oireachtas. People cannot do both jobs.

I agree with Deputy Mitchell on the contradiction in the aspiration to have the environment central to all Government decisions. Public transport is in a particularly anomalous position. Will the Minister inform the Department of Finance, in particular, that the environment exists? As with its view on education, which the Department sees as social expenditure, I am convinced that it sees environmental matters as the concern of crazy greens who do not understand market economics. A fundamental re-education of that Department is required. The Minister is in a position of influence and he should remind the Department of Finance and the Minister that there is not an endless supply of places to put waste to keep the booming economy going.

I would like to hear the Minister’s thoughts on the greening of the tax system but I do not think he will tell me. This is the correct approach and I would like to hear some details. I am enthusiastic about many of the things the Minister has said but has he any plans to implement some of the ideas he had in Opposition, such as the introduction of taxes on plastic bags? This is a good idea and one with which everyone agrees. Another good idea is the elimination of throw away waste, such as cans and bottles, which far more environmentally conscious European countries have done. Are there any EU obstacles to introducing such measures?

Will the Minister ensure that the voluntary sector is adequately consulted about the form of assessment of homelessness so that we can begin to solve the problem by having everyone involved identify the same problem?

Senator D. Kiely: I welcome the outline of the Minister’s proposal for his term of office. He is the first Minister for the Environment and Local Government to visit all of the local authorities to outline his policies and I welcome the fact that he is forthright in his policies.

I was taken aback by Deputy Dukes’ remarks on local government funding. The Government of which he was a Member did nothing about this. That Government was not long in abolishing decent measures which were in place to collect money for local authorities. Opinion polls in Dublin flopped all over the place. Water rates were abolished. Everything was abolished.

Deputy Dukes: Does the Senator have a proposal?

Senator D. Kiely: No, we were waiting for the Deputy’s proposals.

Deputy Dukes: Do Members opposite agree with the Senator?

Senator D. Kiely: We were waiting for some solid proposals. Suddenly the famous motor tax was introduced to replace local government funding.

Deputy Dukes: How does the Senator explain the 6 per cent increase?

Senator D. Kiely: We did not expect to be bombarded so suddenly. I welcome the Minister’s announcement regarding funding for local government, especially the ring fencing of £320 million from the road tax and £270 million from central Government.

I have contested six or seven Seanad elections and have travelled the length and breath of the country. People should be compensated for living in rural areas because they do not have proper facilities or roads. If people living within the pale consider that too much money is spent on roads they should visit County Kerry and look at some of our county roads.

During the recent storms, both before and after Christmas, many of the approximately 2,760 miles of county roads in County Kerry were washed away. Will the Minister remove some of the funding which a Deputy said is spent on laying tarmacadam on top of tarmacadam and transfer it to County Kerry?

Deputy O. Mitchell: The Deputy has a name.

Senator D. Kiely: This may create some decent roads in the county. What can the Minister do to repair the recent storm damage to roads, especially in rural areas? In north County Kerry the roads were washed away. For example, I attended meetings last week in four different villages in north County Kerry where all the roads have been washed away. Is there a fund to compensate those affected and is there funding to compensate those whose lands were washed away?

I welcome the Minister’s intention to introduce a system of customer friendly services and one stop shops to the councils. It is time people got value for money. For example, if people pay car tax they deserve proper roads.

With regard to the equalisation fund and the 80 per cent that is guaranteed to be returned to local government, will counties with more miles of county roads receive extra? County Kerry is promoted as a tourism destination all over the world. Will extra funding be provided to such tourism counties to try and get proper road structures in place?

Is it the Minister’s intention to introduce education programmes on litter to primary and secondary schools? In this regard, the position of take away services must be addressed. The Chairman proposed a revolutionary idea some years ago when he suggested that edible chip bags could be invented.

A very small amount of funding appears to have been provided for national secondary routes. Some 17 per cent of national secondary routes are located in County Kerry, yet only a pittance is spent on upgrading them. Perhaps some flexibility in terms of funding could be provided to counties with large numbers of national secondary roads.

Senator Walsh: I join in the welcome to the Minister. I would not be as pessimistic as Deputy Dukes regarding the potential of the SPCs. Perhaps they will return some power to the councillors which, if exercised properly, could be a step in the right direction. However, I agree with him that it is time the City and County Management Act was radically reviewed. I hope the Minister will look at the act when considering changes to local government and endeavour to redress the balance which exists at present.

Senator Ryan spoke about being a Member of the Oireachtas and of a local authority. In addressing this issue, I hope the Minister will make radical changes, both in the role and the recognition of councillors. The job of a councillor is not recognised as such. There is no remuneration and councillors must be the only unpaid public servants in the country. I hope that aspect will be addressed in the legislation.

With regard to funding for local government, it was a mistake to abolish rates for domestic dwellings and it was a major mistake, undertaken for political reasons, to remove water charges. They provided an independent source of funding for local authorities and I would like to see them restored. However, given that this has not happened, the Minister’s initiative in increasing the revenue base and the level of funding to local authorities should be welcome by everybody interested in local government. I hope that the underpinning of this with legislation will provide a greater surety of funding in the future and that it will not be left to the Minister of the day, or the Minister for Finance of the day, to exercise controls on local government which are sometimes unrealistic.

Modernising the accountancy systems is long overdue. Perhaps the Minister would consider the establishment of a finance committee. If I compare the urban authority of which I am a member with the county council, it would appear that the urban members exercise much more control over funding and expenditure and are more accountable for expenditure than is the case at county council level. Legislation is in place which provides for the establishment of finance and estimates committees, yet very few, if any, local authorities have finance committees.

Will the Minister clarify how the various development bodies will interact with local government? Will they be controlled by local government or continue to operate independently with their own staff while controlling their own funding? There is a need for rationalisation here because there is much duplication of administration costs. I am a member of a county enterprise board. The board administers grant aid of less than £500,000, which is a relatively insignificant amount of money, yet there is a huge administrative cost attached to that. By giving local authorities greater control of those bodies there could be a saving. It will also make them more accountable and result in a restoration and strengthening of local democracy. Urban authorities play a valuable role which I hope will not be diluted in any changes which are made. I hope their dynamic in their local areas will, if anything, be enhanced.

I fully support the Minister’s initiative on litter as this is an area in which improvements could be made. Various unsuccessful efforts have been made in the past to address this issue. The Minister’s initiative would create an awareness which would be reflected in people’s interest in, and commitment to, the environment as a whole. Perhaps the Minister would consider categorising local authorities according to the way they implement and enforce legislation in that area. The Tidy Towns Competition could perhaps be a vehicle through which the contribution of local authorities could be assessed. The bad local authorities in the lower categories could be identified and would then have an incentive to proceed to the higher ones. Such a measure would provide a commentary on the performance of officials in the area of the environment.

I welcome the study on house prices. The increasing cost of houses must be one of the great concerns in local government at present. The increase makes it extremely difficult for first time buyers and young couples, in particular, to aspire to owning their houses. If the prices go out of the reach of young couples, they will become dependent on local authorities to provide housing. That would be a very costly way of meeting our social commitment in that area.

Chairman: Does the Minister wish to respond to these issues now? Other Members have indicated they wish to contribute.

Deputy Dempsey: I will respond at this stage.

Deputy Hayes: Will the Minister accept additional questions now?

Deputy E. Ryan: Could we take additional questions now and will the Chairman guarantee that speakers will only be allowed one minute each?

Chairman: I stated that at the outset but every Member is giving a speech. I am sorry about that. I would be happy to stay here until midnight. I will allow the remaining speakers one minute each.

Senator Chambers: I welcome the Minister’s genuine interest in the development of local authorities. What is the possibility of counties which are experiencing difficulties with waste management receiving EU funding? I think some moneys have been received in the past from Structural or Cohesion Funds for this purpose. This is a major cost; is there any possibility of funding assistance from Europe to support county councils in tackling the problem of total waste management?

Deputy Hayes: I welcome the Minister’s proposal to establish a boundary commission for local authority areas. Is he considering putting that on a legislative footing in the same way as the Dáil and European constituencies?

Deputy E. Ryan: I welcome the Minister. The changes he has made in local government are certainly steps in the right direction. However, the buck must stop somewhere on the issue of local government. Will the Minister look at the idea of directly electing mayors and county chairmen for a fixed period who would go before the people with a manifesto which they would seek to implement during their period in office? That is a way in which local government could be radically changed. The system works well in other cities in France, America and so on. People would sit up and take notice of their local authorities if they were directly elected.

Senator Doyle: The Minister made reference a number of times to traffic congestion, especially in Dublin. Deputy Mitchell said that Dublin Bus will have to play a major role in helping to alleviate that problem. Will the Minister support the implementation of quality bus corridors? The Minister outlined his Department’s strategy in detail and informed us that the Department has set up a number of new bodies. What role will regional authorities have in implementing his Department’s policy?

Deputy Clune: I welcome the Minister and thank him for coming before the Committee. To my mind there was an environmental contradiction in the local government package announced by the Minister in that he is making funding from motor taxation available to local authorities when cities and towns are becoming congested with traffic. On the one hand, local authorities welcome cars being taxed and put on the road but, on the other, they are seeking to reduce the number of cars on the road. That is a contradiction in environmental terms.

Deputy McCormack: What are the terms of reference for the review of local authority areas? I am sorry Senator Ryan is no longer present as the only comment made on the dual mandate was made by someone who does not wish to be a member of a local authority. I would welcome an open debate on that issue as there are many Members present here who are members of local authorities and who could bring the benefit of their experience to bear on such a debate.

Deputy Haughey: In regard to the dual mandate, it is my experience that the electorate expect TDs to deal with issues concerning local authorities. A great deal of education will be required in that regard.

I welcome the review of the Dublin Transportation Initiative. The DTI has been implemented for the past year or more. What are the Minister’s plans in regard to that review? Will a new report be produced, will there be further public consultation and will a new blueprint be drawn up in due course?

Deputy Dempsey: I will try to touch on each of the questions asked.

I welcome the opportunity to come before the Committee. I hope and expect it will proactive on the issue of local government reform and the other areas under its remit. If the Committee wishes to discuss planning and other areas and make submissions to me for consideration for reform packages, I would more than welcome that. We will only get one shot at the reform of local government over the coming 12 months. The greater the number of points of view brought to bear on that, the better it will be for everyone.

Rather than people feeling they have to knock proposals which I bring forward, I would be delighted to take on board any constructive or positive suggestions they might have. I will give credit where it is due.

I do not know what the review of the DTI will throw up. The review covers progress to date but if it is perceived that there is a need to expand and embark on a further full initiative, that will be done. I cannot say where we are going until such time as I see the outcome the current review. Obviously, some unforeseen problems exist, particularly with the growth in the volume of cars in Dublin which has increased on average by approximately 32 per cent over the past two or three years.

A number of Members asked about the dual mandate. There are advantages and disadvantages to having Members of the Oireachtas on local authorities. If I can achieve the type of local government system I would like to achieve, I do not think Deputies and Senators will be able to spend the amount of time they should doing both.

There will be clear choices to be made by members of local authorities and Members of the Oireachtas. I want to see a system of real local government. My views on reform of other areas of the electoral system are well known. I would like to see national politicians following national agendas, ensuring that Government pursues the policies which it is elected to do and that semi-State bodies spend taxpayers’ money in the way they should. The current system does not allow for proper scrutiny by Parliament of semi-State bodies and Departments. I do not apologise to anybody about that, although I will probably be thrown out of my parliamentary party for expressing such views. However, they are my personal views and I work towards that agenda. It would be good for both local and national Government if we all pursued the same agenda.

The commissions for local government will be statutory by virtue of the Local Governement Act, 1994. Deputy McCormack asked about the terms of reference. They have not been drawn up but they will broadly try to ensure there is an equality of representation within county boundaries. In one particular county the average population per county councillor is 1,100 whereas in another county council area it is 8,500. If I were to try to equalise that on a national basis local elections would probably be postponed until 2010. However, we will try to achieve an equality within county boundaries. The number of councillors may have to be increased in some local authority areas but we will try to keep that to a minimum. We will try to achieve an equal councillor to population ratio in each of the electoral areas within a local authority area.

I have already decided that part of the terms of reference, in keeping with the other reforms and changes, will take into account the local authorities’ plans for the provision of services in an area. For example, the commission will take into account if a local authority is reviewing engineering areas to ensure there is a town in each electoral area, although it may not always be able to abide by that. The terms of reference will be made public, local authorities will be allowed make submissions and the commission will then get on with its work.

I will address the point made by Deputy Clune when I discuss the funding package later. The main problem with introducing quality bus corridors in Dublin, which is part of the DTO initiative, is that the process has been slowed down by the consultations which are taking place with local businesses, residents’ associations and so on. There is still a commitment to such corridors - the delay is a result of the consultation process rather than any reluctance on the part of the DTO. It would help speed up the implementation if Deputies could point out to communities the benefit of quality bus corridors for everybody, including local traders.

Regional authorities are very important in the overall strategic planning of the regions. They should undertake that role at the behest of their constituent members, the local authorities, which should ensure their long-term strategic planning is co-ordinated at that level. I do not want to proscribe the activities of regional authorities. I would like to see local authorities, which are the constituent members of those regional authorities, deciding whether they want the expertise of an overall strategic regional plan for water, roads, waste and so on. A number of regional authorities are working jointly across regional boundaries. In Senator Chambers’ area most of Connaught is working together on a waste management strategy for the area. Such a strategy is also being developed in the south-east. I would like the regional authorities to engage in strategic planning.

Deputy Ryan asked about directly elected chairpersons for local authorities or lord mayors. We had this conversation on a number of occasions while we were in Opposition and my view has not changed. I would like to see directly elected chairpersons in my political lifetime, which would enhance democracy and make chairpersons more answerable. More importantly, in regard to the criticism made by Deputy Dukes of the SPC concept, a full-time, directly elected chairperson is the only real counterpoint to a full-time, paid manager. I am not sure whether the system is ready for such a concept immediately but I hope to provide for it in the future if Members of the House agree.

Senator Kiely and others referred to roads funding. Successive Governments have recently tried to allocate moneys for non-national roads to local authorities so that they can plan to spend it over a 12 month period. As part of that exercise, local authorities are told each year the amount of their allocation and they decide how it is spent under the various headings. They are also advised to put money aside for emergencies which may arise during the year. It is not the practice of the Department to make special allocations for particular problems, such as heavy snow or roads being washed away. As far as I am aware, such an allocation was made on only one occasion.

I do not intend to make special allocations to local authorities for particular problems but I intend to substantially increase the amount of money available for non-national roads. The extra £30 million will be distributed to local authorities but they must spend it prudently. When I was a lowly councillor I was fascinated by how the money was distributed. It is generally distributed on the basis on road mileage. Some counties received a little extra in the past for historic reasons; for example, Kerry received extra funding because of its high tourist figures. I committed myself to adhering as closely as possible to the new road pavement study, commissioned last year by my predecessor and was presented to me on my arrival in office, which assessed the needs of various local authorities. It is used this year as a basis for the allocation of non-national roads funding. However, its recommendation that money be taken from one county and given to another is not being accepted. We are using last year’s figures as the basis for future allocations. That study is being used this year as one of the bases for allocation of roads funding. While there is never enough money for roads, especially non-national roads, people will be reasonably satisfied we are going in the right direction. I agree with the Deputy’s point about national secondary roads. Not enough money is being provided for them. There is a commitment in the programme for Government to increase that amount and we will do it. It needs to be increased substantially more than we have been able to this year. It is an area which requires serious attention in the future and I intend to give it.

Senator Ryan made a number of points, one of which was about the dual mandate, and another, also made by Deputy Olivia Mitchell and others, concerned the environment. I agree with the Deputies. It is no great secret, and anyone who served in Government will know, that a huge problem exists in formulating an integrated environmental policy between Departments. In the past, they tended to view it as being the responsibility of the Department of the Environment and Local Government and continued with their policies regardless of how they affected the environment. That is not the approach I and the Government have adopted, and our policy document was clear that there must be an integrated approach to environmental matters. That said, it is one thing to say it and another to deliver on it. It is difficult to deliver on it and I do not want to minimise the difficulties in so doing. There is a growing recognition among my good but frequently criticised friends in the Department of Finance that there are opportunities as well as threats in this kind of approach. I welcome anything this committee can do to support my commitment to ensuring an integrated approach. I believe the penny is dropping. The previous Government produced a document on sustainable development which hammered home the message. We intend to continue doing that and I outlined earlier the setting up of the National Environment Partnership Forum, the Local Agenda 21 Network, the Green Network in Departments at Assistant Secretary level and the environmental audit of Departments. They are all designed to put across the message that other Departments must play their role. I hope and am confident that message is getting through, that we will be able to hammer it home over the coming years and that we will finally have an integrated approach to environmental matters.

Senator Ryan also asked me about implementing policies we espoused in Opposition. I assure him the tax on plastic bags, the elimination of throwaway receptacles, etc., are still part of the agenda. A suggestion of a problem has arisen with the plastic bags tax in that it may conflict with European competition law, but we are examining that. In addition to an interdepartmental group which is working on greening the tax system, I have asked my officials in the Department to bring forward policies and proposals which I intend to pursue bilaterally with various Ministers. I hope to make progress on that.

As regards funding from the EU for waste management, I regret to inform the Senator that the EU has a basic principle and philosophy on this, which we also have, which is that the polluter pays and that the principle will be applied. It would be very difficult to get substantial funding for ordinary waste management strategies. I am aware the Commission might be interested in funding a pilot scheme of alternatives to landfill and we are pursuing that with it. We will examine any proposals the regional group I mentioned or other local authorities may have on that.

A point was made about local development bodies and Senator Walsh asked whether they would be controlled by local government. I would not like to use the word “controlled”, but he has identified the nub of the matter. Six or seven different administrations are involved in the various facets - ADMs, partnerships, Leader, county enterprise boards, etc. It is a waste of resources and it is my aim to integrate the systems so that all the existing administrations would not be needed. I have said publicly that the local government system is accountable because public representatives are publicly accountable. From that point of view, we will be integrating the local government system to create partnership rather than allowing parallel administration systems to continue.

I accept the point about urban authorities which echoes my views. Having been a member and a chairman of an urban district council in Trim, I know the attachment people have to their local councils. I believe councillors may have a greater attachment to them than the public. The most important point is the service and how well it is delivered. A major problem is now arising in the areas of waste management and the provision of water services. If a certain local authority had not been assisted recently in the provision of a new water system for its area, it would have caused a rise of 37 per cent in commercial rates in the town. Many of these local authorities are incapable of carrying out the more significant functions. I would like to see them concentrate on functions they can afford to carry out and provide for their citizens. They could provide more significant services in conjunction with the county council and on an agency basis if that is more effective. That is the direction I intend to go. Borough councils are a different matter because they have a larger population base and can sustain a wider range of functions. I will bring forward proposals on that shortly.

The SPCs should not be seen in isolation. If they were being introduced on their own, there would be a validity to the criticism made by Deputy Dukes that they do not involve real policy making. They are not being introduced on their own; they are part of an ongoing process. We discussed another effort at democratising the system by having directly elected chairpersons. The chairs of these SPCs will come together with the manager and will jointly make executive decisions and recommendations as a cabinet, so to speak, relating to policies adopted by the county council. That is real democracy. It allows public representatives a say. They will be given support and research facilities, and training and education processes will be put in place for councillors. This means councillors will be obliged to take more responsibility. They cannot expect to evade that responsibility, which will be laid fairly and squarely on their shoulders, because they will be making decisions on policy.

Deputy Dukes contribution was more negative than required. I accept this is a political forum but the Deputy could have been more positive. I am sorry he is not present so that we might engage in discussion about his views. The Deputy identified the problems relating to funding and proceeded to brush aside our attempts to rectify them. As Deputy Dukes stated, the fact that he is not a member of a local authority does not help his understanding of this issue. When he has had time to become more familiar with his brief, I hope the Deputy will see the wisdom behind some of our actions.

I am in complete agreement with a number of the points made by Deputy Dukes, such as discretion regarding how local authorities spend money, councillors being annoyed at being stripped of their powers, funding, etc. The Deputy’s assertion is accurate but there is no point in continuing to discuss the problems - we must proceed to discuss solutions. I am no longer interested in problems, I am concerned with finding solutions. I intend to put forward a number of proposals in this regard and I hope I will have full support from the committee and councillors. I make no apology for informing councillors that any proposals I bring forward should be judged not on the fact that they emanate from a Minister in a Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrat Government but on the basis of whether they will make the system more democratic and return local public representatives to the centre of local democracy. That is how my proposals should be judged.

If Members have views, ideas or proposals - I have already said this to local authority representatives - they should bring them forward in a positive way. If possible, I will endeavour to include them in the package of reforms. As already stated, this is the centenary of the foundation of local government and in three to four generations people will again be discussing a fundamental review of this matter. I do not subscribe to the philosophy that the Department or I have a monopoly on wisdom. I genuinely believe that we must get this right.

It was stated that the only new element in the package I announced on 12 January is the provision of an additional £125 million. There are other Departments which would be delighted if the relevant Ministers stated that only an additional £125 million would be given out. That money represents a major injection of funding. I accept it will not resolve all of the problems but it will allow local government, which has been burdened with many responsibilities without access to requisite funding, to catch up. The £125 million will also allow for an expansion in the services provided by local authorities and, as Deputy Mitchell stated, because of the way the funding will be put in place and guaranteed it will allow them to plan their programmes over a two to three year period.

Until now, funding was provided on a hand-to-mouth basis. Local authorities never knew the precise amount of money they would receive apart from the fact that rate support grants would rise in tandem with inflation. However, wage bills could have risen by 8 per cent in that period and there could be additional impositions such as the provisions of the Abattoirs Act, the Water Pollution Act and a raft of other considerations such as dog licences, etc. The local authorities received no compensation in that regard. The new system of funding will ensure that this does not happen in future and that local authorities will have a basis for arranging their finances. If obligations are imposed on the authorities, they will obtain money to meet them.

With regard to the increase in motor tax, Deputy Dukes quoted me as saying 12 months ago that I believed the increase was excessive. I never made such a statement and I did not criticise the increase on that basis. My criticism of the proposal was based on the fact that motor tax was to be put towards funding local government per se and I foresaw that there would be a major backlash. My fear was that the money would be used to pay wages, salaries, etc., and would not be used to develop roads. In the proposal I am putting forward, motor tax revenue will be largely, though not exclusively, devoted to the non-national roads programme. I am tying motor tax into that system, which will guarantee continued work on the roads programme, but it will also form part of local government funding.

Another criticism I made of the original motor tax proposal was that we would return to a situation such as that which existed in my constituency of Meath where there were three different rates of water charges in urban authority areas and a fourth rate in the county council area. This led to endless difficulties. If the original motor tax proposal had proceeded, Dublin would have not needed to increase motor taxation while neighbouring counties might have been obliged to do so. This would lead to different rates of motor tax and loss of revenue across county borders. That was the basis of my opposition to the original proposal and I have changed its provisions as a result.

The provision of the additional £125 million will not solve all the problems. However, the other elements of the package are even more important than the amount of money involved because it is ring-fenced, inflation-proof and stipulates that impositions can no longer be placed on local government without the provision of requisite funding. That is most important.

Deputy Clune made the point that motor tax is environmentally contradictory. If local government was solely dependent on motor taxation for its funding or if local authorities were obliged to encourage people to increase the number of cars on the road, there would be validity in the Deputy’s argument. It is a fact of economic growth which cannot be helped that the number of cars on the road will increase in the future. Local authorities will benefit from that growth but that is not to say that we cannot implement policies to reduce traffic congestion and encourage greater use of public transport. However, at least there will be stable and buoyant funding for local government and roads which is very important. I do not see that as environmentally contradictory.

I believe I have answered most of the questions put to me and I thank the Chairman and Members for their patience.

Chairman: I thank the Minister for the wide range of replies he gave in such a short space of time. I also thank him for coming before the committee and I assure him we look forward to his returning at his convenience to meet us in the immediate future.

Chairman: I welcome officials of the Department of the Environment and Local Government, particularly Mr. John O’Connor, Assistant Secretary. Planning is creating some of the greatest problems in Kerry. Huge amounts of money are being lost because of various planning reasons. We are delighted to have the views of Mr. O’Connor and his team.

Mr. O’Connor: The Minister welcomes the interest of this committee in the review of planning legislation. The views of the committee will be very helpful to the Minister and the Department in formulating proposals. It is probably unique that a committee would have an opportunity this early to air their views on the formulation of new legislation, and the committee will have another chance to discuss the Bill on Committee Stage.

Item 9 of the committee’s work programme refers to the convention on the Irish planning system held on 27 November, and I will circulate a summary report of the convention’s proceedings to Members. The background to the present review of planning legislation stems from a commitment in the Government’s programme to review and consolidate planning legislation, particularly in order to facilitate the maximum public participation in the planning process and to make sustainable development more central to that process.

Particular priorities in the programme for Government are local authority developments in their own areas and how the planning system should relate to those; the idea of seven year development plans; and the protection of the built heritage was also highlighted. Other commitments must also be addressed. First, Partnership 2000 gives a commitment to consider how accelerated procedures could be put in place to facilitate major developments. Another commitment was made to streamline the planning system to reduce delays, especially where commercial developments might be delayed.

A third source of commitments to a planning review is the sustainable development strategy published last year. Those commitments relate to examining whether the exemption of certain types of development, especially those relating to forestry and peat extraction, which were in the planning Acts from the outset, is still justified. Statutory recognition for regional plans and enshrining sustainable development in the planning system must also be examined.

The review process commenced last summer with a public invitation to any interested parties, bodies or members of the public to submit views on any aspect of the planning system, but seven areas in particular which correspond to the issues I have mentioned: local authority-owned developments, public participation, special industrial development zones, minimising delays, regional planning guidelines, exemptions and development levies.

Protection of architectural heritage was not included in that review because matters in this area are much more advanced. There is an interdepartmental report on protecting the architectural heritage, and related legislation is at an advanced state of preparation. The Minister will bring that to the Government soon. It was not included in the review because the proposals are much more refined. Over 150 submissions were received, which covered a wide range of topics. Some were short, but we received many well-researched papers on the planning system which provided much food for thought. People approached these matters from different angles.

I have circulated the report on the convention, which the Minister opened. He mentioned three principles which would guide the reform proposals. The first was that the approach would have to be strategic; we would need to take a broad and long-term view. The regional and national dimensions would have to be taken on board in the planning process. Second, the ethos of the reforms would have to be that of sustainable development, and a balance between development and protecting the environment would have to be achieved. Third, performance would have to be of the highest quality, and the planning system would have to deliver and efficient service.

The Minister emphasised that he has an open mind with regard to reviewing the legislation. Therefore, all views are welcome. Ms. Mary Moylan of the Department of Environment and Local Government outlined the main issues raised in the 150 submissions, and these were presented to the convention. Professor Lyn Davies of the Department of Land Management and Development at Reading University presented a paper which tried to give a context to the discussions on what Ireland can learn from practice in other European countries. He pointed out that each country has a unique planning system and simplistic comparisons cannot be made. Care must be taken in selecting examples of best practice from other countries to ensure that any models we look at are suitable to Ireland. He suggested addressing, as a priority, a system of effective regional or strategic planning above county level.

Nicholas Mansergh from the geography department in UCC discussed the European, national and regional context for development plans. The final speaker in the series of contextual papers presented at the convention was James Macken, who highlighted some of the current issues relating to judicial review in the planning system. He said the status of litigants who claimed limited liability by incorporating into a company before challenging a planning decision has yet to be resolved. He made the point that the courts are unwilling to interfere in the planning system and require a plaintiff to show an error in law or unfairness in procedures. The courts are inclined to leave planning to the planners and elected representatives unless procedures have not been followed.

The main focus of the convention were the six workshops which followed on from the earlier papers and dealt with the review on a thematic basis. The first issue was how public participation related to local democracy and transparency in the system, including the question of local authority owned developments. A critical aspect of this discussion was ownership of the development and whether it belongs to the local authority or the local community. Some advocated going into a community with a blank sheet of paper and starting planning from there. Others felt it was necessary to have a draft to guide discussion on development plans.

On the consultative process and engaging in preparation, the Dublin Docklands’ masterplan was not seen as a precise model, because it is rather elaborate, but rather as a way of approaching matters. On the role of elected representatives, it was pointed out that increased participation by the public can lead to increased conflict. Elected representatives said they must take the hard decisions, whether consensus is reached in the wider consultative process. Only so much consultation can be engaged in and the concept of sustainability should prevail to a large extent.

Sustainable development requires that transport and energy implications of land use decisions are considered. High density must be looked at, especially in urban brownfield sites.

Deputy E. Ryan: Perhaps it would be better for Members to ask questions as we can read Mr. O’Connor’s presentation. There are important issues to be addressed.

Mr. O’Connor: It is up to the committee. I am not here to give answers on what will be in the new legislation. I am facilitating a discussion by the committee. I will answer questions on any factual matters. I felt it was helpful to brief the committee.

Chairman: It is fairer to allow Mr. O’Connor make his presentation and then allow Members ask questions.

Mr. E. Ryan: Time is running out.

Chairman: We are all in a hurry. However, these visitors waited for a considerable amount of time.

Mr. E. Ryan: This is an important issue which is why I stayed to hear Mr. O’Connor.

Chairman: I suggest we allow Mr. O’Connor make his presentation and we can then discuss the key points.

Deputy Haughey: I apologise to Mr. O’Connor that we are rushing his contribution. We seem to have a heavy workload today.

Mr. O’Connor: I will keep my presentation as brief as possible. On participation at development control level, there was a considerable degree of dissatisfaction with current systems for giving public notice of planning applications. Site notice is extremely important but needs more stringent monitoring.

The question of whether present enforcement systems are adequate was also raised. While that was not one of the headline items, it was raised in strong terms and will be taken into account in any reform of the system. On development by local authorities, there is a quasi-planning system whereby part ten of the 1994 regulations is used. Local authorities do not have to apply for planning permission to themselves which would be a senseless exercise. The question remains, however, as to whether there should be an appeal in the case of local authority owned developments. Some questions were also raised about the degree of transparency and accountability of Bord Pleanála and whether alternative arrangements such as a regional board might be more appropriate.

The second workshop dealt with the issues of achieving sustainability and the interface between planning and integrated pollution control. The incorporation of the concept of sustainable development and planning legislation was discussed, an issue which many countries are tackling. It is not easy to legislate for sustainable development because it is a broad concept and cannot be reduced to a particular requirement. One of the issues here is whether development plans should be subject to environmental impact assessment, which would be one way of approaching the matter. It was also said that indicators of sustainability should be formulated and guidelines produced if development is to be conducted successfully.

The question of the interface between pollution control licensing and planning also arose. It was alleged that this system gives rise to inconsistencies in practice. Increased co-operation is necessary between the EPA and the planning authorities at development control and development plan level. Local authorities should have the option of refusing planning permission on environmental grounds even if the development in question meets the requirements of integrated pollution control licensing.

The third workshop examined methods of improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the planning process while ensuring its quality. This is a very contentious topic, probably on the lines outlined by the Chairman at the outset. The planning system has become more central to social and economic development and it is crucial that it delivers a high quality of performance and standard of service. It was found that badly prepared planning applications were part of the problem. A standard application form for use by all applicants might be helpful. Planning authorities need to be willing to reject applications rather then deferring them where they do not come up to standard.

There was a call for regulations relating to planning applications to be simplified, especially in the case, for example, of small developments. The question arose whether there is room to extend the exemptions which apply to small developments.

The importance of development plans as part of the planning process was highlighted. The point was made that if the development plan is not good then the planning service will not be efficient. The introduction of fast-tracking for planning in the context of industrial development has been examined in other countries and it was felt that, if Ireland is to remain competitive in attracting internationally mobile investment, etc., we should examine our planning system and how it measures up in this respect.

The issue of enforcement was raised in the context of the planning service as was the question of whether the enforcement element of the planning service was fulfilling its obligations. There was a feeling that enforcement was the one aspect of the planning system which had been neglected and that there was too much abuse of the system, particularly through the method of retention of development. It was also felt that the system of penalties was not proving effective in combating abuses.

It was felt that better consultation between developers and the planning authority would help to improve the efficiency of the system.

Another workshop dealt with the issues of planning for growth, strategic land use and transportation. The workshop concentrated on exploring the need for a hierarchy of plans - national, regional, county and local - and the role, if any, for strategic guidelines. The committee may know that the question of strategic planning guidelines has already been put in train for the greater Dublin area. There have been national development plans, but the point was made that these were not given a spatial context and that, perhaps, there was room for some spatially related national development planning. According to some people the answer was a national land use plan.

There was general consensus about the need for a regional dimension to future development plans. The role of regional authorities in drawing up and implementing such plans was discussed. It was considered that regional guidelines should be comprehensive, statutorily binding and enforceable. It was felt that a time horizon of 15 years would be appropriate to such regional planning guidelines. The issue of outdated development plans was also raised in this context. It is often a matter of resources as well as will. The programme for Government refers to seven year plans. There is a difference between the review period and the horizon of a plan. Given the speed of development pressures today, we may be talking about seven year horizons and five year reviews of plans.

Workshop E dealt with planning and the natural environment. The EU habitats regulations were referred to and the implications of the designation of special areas of conservation for landowners and planning authorities were discussed. The issue of afforestation received much attention. Those representating the forestry industry felt there was already sufficient regulation of forestry development, that self regulation, such as it is, was working and that further controls via the planning system were not necessary. However, there was an equally strong view from others that full planning permission should be required for afforestation. The absence of a formal mechanism whereby the public can give its views on proposed forestry projects was criticised.

Similar comments can be applied to peat extraction. There was a general concern about the risks caused by uncontrolled peat extraction, especially as the amount of bogland is being considerably eaten into. The problem of exemptions under the Planning Acts and the definition of turbary in the Acts was raised.

There was considerable dissatisfaction with current systems for giving public notice of planning applications.

The final workshop dealt with development levies, planning gain and compensation. The point was made that planning gain is taken from developers through capital gains tax but that these taxes accrued to central Government and that there is no particular gain for local authorities which often have to facilitate developments. It was suggested that if these monies were made available to local authorities they could be used to further develop infrastructure and services which would make the area more attractive for further development. It was also recognised that areas with little or no development would not benefit from such a system.

Another idea put forward was that land should only be zoned for the currency of a development plan as a means of ensuring that land, once zoned, became available for development.

There were differing views on the issue of development levies. It is generally agreed that the legislation dealing with this issue needs to be clarified and reviewed, particularly in the context of transparency, the basis local authorities use for calculating levies, the way the money is spent, etc.

These are the main items which were raised in the workshop. In summing up the chairman of the final session of the convention pointed out that the planning system had moved from being an instrument to encourage development to having a much more complex relationship with the built and natural environments.

No decisions have been made on many of these issues yet as they are still being tossed around. There are many differing and opposing views on some issues. Whatever solutions are found will have to be judged on the three basic principles I mentioned earlier - they must be strategic, sustainable and efficient.

I hope I have been of help to the committee and if there any questions I will try to answer them, but beyond that it is a question of us listening to the views of Members and conveying them to the Minister when decisions will be made on these issues.

Deputy Ryan: I thank Mr. O‘Connor for this important summary of how planning procedure will change. Some ideas behind it are long overdue. It is virtually impossible, especially as a Deputy from Dublin, to look at the planning process without examining our architectural heritage and I am delighted that this is at an advanced stage. A great deal of damage has been done, but hopefully if we move quickly we can minimise the damage and protect many existing buildings in urban and rural areas. It is vital that legislation is brought in as quickly as possible.

Much of the docklands development plan is in my constituency and I hope that it works but I am not too sure if it should be used as a blueprint until we see how it works out. The jury is out on it, but nobody hopes more than myself that it works. It looks as though it is a good system but I would not use it everywhere until I saw the results of this plan. When this was debated in the Dáil I made the point that a certain section of it could just turn out to be a talking shop and there then would be an executive committee consisting of six or seven people who would want to make the decisions. Senator Doyle is a member and he might want to comment on that but I hope that will not be the case.

Section 27 must be changed as it is a joke. Most local authorities are afraid to go to court because they will probably lose. People just build on extensions, etc., in Dublin and get away with it. It is very rare that the planning laws are enforced unless there has been a very blatant abuse of them but I agree there should be a system whereby the local authority can move very quickly to stop people and review the situation so that they cannot just continue on and apply for retention.

There should be more transparency with regard to An Bord Pleanála. People are confused, especially when it overrules decisions made by local authorities. The only way for people to understand what goes on is if an oral hearing is held where they can listen to an inspector and be more comfortable with the decision. The system is very closed and people do not know when a decision will be made or those involved in it as it is completely faceless. It should be more open and people would feel much more comfortable with it.

I welcome information technology as it is vital that members of the public can check up on the status of a planning application or the background to it. Yesterday, members of Dublin City Council were asked by management to give their views on how it was being run. I suggested that information technology be used rather than ringing up people in the planning office, wasting their time and ours on what stage a planning application is at.

Once a planning application is lodged in my local authority area, Dublin Corporation, the planners will not meet local residents to give their views and that is not right. They will do so beforehand but not once the application has been lodged because they say it gives the residents an unfair advantage but if there has been preplanning consultation in many cases, it leaves the residents at a disadvantage and I do not see why a resident group or an individual cannot have a face to face meeting and inform the planners why they are for or against a development.

I cannot understand, considering current house prices why a great deal of land is being rezoned for development - indeed, in the past rezoning was a dirty word - as I have spoken to developers who are willing to contribute large amounts of money to provide services on this land. The only way to bring down house prices is to build more of them. It is a seller’s market and that gain from development is very important.

There needs to be a regional approach to planning, especially in larger urban areas and for county development plans. Consideration should be given to refusing planning permission on environmental grounds. Senator Doyle and I dealt with an incinerator issue in our constituency. One extraordinary aspect of it was that one was not allowed to give environmental reasons when objecting to an incinerator at local authority level. One has to wait for the EPA and people could not understand that. As it transpired, the application for the incinerator was turned down but if it had not, it would have caused huge suspicion among the public. Environmental grounds could not be given for something as blatant as that. A local authority should be allowed to examine environmental reasons even though it will go on to the EPA for licensing.

It is not correct that the possibility of extending exemptions should be examined. One should not exempt any more. I am suspicious of that and wish to examined what is proposed.

Deputy O. Mitchell: I thank Mr. O’Connor for his presentation, submissions and the summary of the Convention. Will we have an opportunity to discuss the legislation that eventually emerges and to feed into it other than that which we have today?

Chairman: I do not know if we will have another chance. I am keen that we have a final discussion on it. Otherwise, the committee can make written submissions to the Minister.

Deputy O. Mitchell: I will confine myself to two points not raised previously in this debate. The first may be primarily an urban issue. It arises from the perennial problem where land is held in private ownership and planning authorities can only indicate the type of development proposed.

A difficulty arises in trying to abide by the principle that the approach should be strategic and sustainable with regard to the development of area action plans for new areas designated for development or for partially developed areas, such as villages, which are designated for cluster development. The local authority generally wishes to see sustainable mixed use development rather than the type of development that almost inevitably results from land being held by different private owners. The latter usually leads to a series of housing developments with little open space and no village concept. There is no sense of a community being developed.

Some local authorities would like to be able to designate one open space to which all surrounding landowners would contribute financially. That might mean the landowners having to agree to land swops or it might be achieved by local authorities putting a compulsory purchase order on the entire area in order to secure compliance. The legislation does not provide for that course of action, but if we are serious in our desire for sustainable development areas, to build communities and to be strategic in our approach to the development of new areas, that power must be provided.

The other area of concern relates to development levies. Local authorities are restricted in the objectives for which they can impose levies. The objectives are out of date in that they do not contribute to sustainable development. In many cases, they have the opposite effect. Is it possible to incorporate in new legislation the introduction of a scale of development levies which would take environmental gain into consideration? In other words, in the design, layout, construction and the materials used in a development, developers would be given an incentive to produce a sustainable development. If they contribute to the sustainable development, their levy could be decreased and it could be increased if sustainable objectives are ignored.

Developers of a development that is close to a public transport node, for example, or facilitates bus movement would be obliged to pay a smaller levy than developments that are far removed from such locations. At present, the legislation does not permit such discretion although the system is used extensively in other countries as a means of achieving the type of development sought by the local authority. Could this system be included in the legislation? It will probably be difficult because it is difficult to create a scale of sustainable indicators but we should be moving in that direction.

Deputy Haughey: I thank Mr. O’Connor and his officials for their presentation. It will be a helpful guide in our review of the planning system. The issue of public participation in the planning process must be addressed. It is disheartening to work as a city councillor when the public does not get involved, particularly with regard to the development plan. I am often asked to go to public meetings about planning applications and, when I explain that the land concerned was zoned for residential development some years previously, they say they knew nothing about it. They should know about such zoning decisions.

Dublin city council is due to review its development plan in the next few weeks. Although I do not have a statutory obligation to do so, I will send a circular to residents’ associations to inform them of what is contained in the plan. However, aside from a few people who are interested in the plan or are vigilant about certain issues, nobody will get involved. We need to achieve more public participation. Attempts were made to have public consultation about the Docklands development plan and the proposals of the Dublin Transport Initiative but there must be greater use of modern communications to secure public participation. The ordinary notice in the newspaper is not sufficient when people are getting information by many different means. This issue is extremely important and I am delighted it was addressed at the convention.

I support Deputy Ryan’s comments about enforcement and section 27. It is hopelessly inadequate. Local planning enforcement officers are somewhat easy going - I do not wish to insult them - possibly because they do not have the power to deal with the situations that confront them. There is also a tradition of people taking the “it will do” attitude, an attitude that is alive and well in Dublin city council. We must give planning enforcement officers more power. If a developer knocks down a row of trees in contravention of the planning permission, nothing can be done about it. The trees are gone. Local authorities are also slow to take High Court action to force developers to comply with conditions attached to permissions. I am glad these problems were discussed at the convention because they have become an important issue. In a modern and vibrant city, the “it will do” attitude must be eliminated and the powers of enforcement officers must be reviewed.

Deputy Ryan also referred to transparency with regard to An Bord Pleanála. I am not clear about the role of public representatives vis-à-vis making representations to the board. A member of the board’s staff told me that public representatives are permitted to send a note to the board to indicate whether they support or oppose the matter but they should not make observations about the issue. Can a public representative write to the board to say he or she supports or opposes a development and ask that the board inform him or her of the decision? Public representatives should have a greater role in the operation of An Bord Pleanála. We should not have allowed the current situation, in which we are excluded from the system, to develop. I agree there should be more transparency with regard to the board’s decisions, particularly from the point of view of the public.

Planning officials are not pro-enterprise. People who come forward with business proposals, particularly people from outside Ireland, are disillusioned with the planning departments in local authorities. There does not appear to be a pro-enterprise understanding among officials. I do not know how that can be changed. Presumably, many of the officials graduated from college and do not have business experience. That is not a criticism but, in view of the Minister’s statement that the approach should be strategic, we must find a way to make local authorities more supportive of enterprise, particularly with regard to planning issues.

Senator Doyle: The planning conference was most interesting. I understood there was a closing date for submissions from public representatives about the proposed planning legislation. Can we still make representations? I understood there was a closing date for submissions from public representatives on the proposed planning legislation. Am I to understand we may still make representations or are those representations to be made during the debate on the Bill in the Dáil and Seanad?

Mr. O’Connor: There was a closing date but that does not apply to the committee as it was not in place when this process started. The Minister made it clear he is prepared to listen to the views from the committee at this stage of the process.

Senator J. Doyle: That clarifies the point. I was interested in the submissions made by the public and, indeed, the one which provides for the setting up of industrial zones to facilitate industrial development. It was also argued in one of the submissions - I do not agree with this-that there should be public consultation on the draft development plan. I believe that is a function for elected members and management and that when a plan has been formed, it should then go before the public for consultation. That would be the proper course of action.

A number of Members mentioned enforcement and I agree with them in that regard. I understand the enforcement section in the 1993 Act was provided initially to facilitate someone who genuinely made a mistake in a development and could later rectify the problem. However, that has been abused and people are building developments and then looking for retention. That must be stopped because it defeats the propose of the 1963 Act.

I note in the workshop that somebody said that when An Bord Pleanála overturns the inspectors report, the board should give a full public explanation. I do not know if that happens. Recently, Dublin Corporation granted planning permission for the extension to the National Gallery. According to press reports, the inspector recommended that the proposal go ahead at the oral hearing but An Bord Pleanála overturned that judgment. I do not know if An Bord Pleanála has made available the reasons for that decision. If not, An Bord Pleanála should be made to make them available.

Another issue which was not dealt with has upset me for many years. When a material contravention is examined by a local authority and it is asked to give planning permission in contravention to its own development plan, it must go through a certain procedure and then make a decision. If someone appeals to An Bord Pleanála over a decision which contravenes the development plan of a local authority, which has turned down the application and has not considered going through that procedure, An Bord Pleanála may make a decision without going through that procedure. If the local authority must go through that procedure, An Bord Pleanála should do so.

Chairman: I would like to make a few comments. I am at loggerheads with An Bord Pleanála. If we make a decision, we must explain the reasons for making it and the reasons we granted or refused permission. An Bord Pleanála does not reply other than to say it will not discuss the matter. I know of several cases which I will not relate to Members. However, I have statistics on An Bord Pleanála. In 1994, 41 per cent of planning decisions were confirmed by the board, 36 per cent of decisions were amended and 23 per cent of decisions were reversed. In 1995, 41 per cent of planning decisions were confirmed, 36 per cent of decisions were amended and 23 per cent were reversed. In 1996, 41 per cent of planning decisions were confirmed by the board, 36 per cent were amended and 23 per cent were reversed. No computer or person making decisions could come up with the same percentages in three successive years. There is no way the figures could be the same for three successive years.

Deputy O. Mitchell: They are assisted.

Chairman: I do not know what system is used. Will officials from the Department take a serious look at the costs involved where a neighbour appeals to An Bord Pleanála? It costs a person thousands of pounds if they must wait for a decision and they are delayed for eight to ten months simply because a bad neighbour appeals a decision to An Bord Pleanála. I suggest the cost of making an appeal should be a least ten times more than it is at present. If a person must pay a significant amount to appeal, they will do so only if they have a genuine reason. Too many people are appealing planning applications for the fun of it and to delay somebody.

I know a man who wanted to extend a public house but his neighbour appealed because he had a public house a couple of doors away and did not want his neighbour to get a dance licence and wanted to keep him out of the trade for a number of months. It is unfair that there is not a proper charge for making an appeal. It is ridiculous to ask a citizen in south Kerry or in Cong, County Mayo, to wait nine months for a decision. I appeal to the officials from the Department to take a serious look at this issue.

If a person wants to ask questions or to appeal a decision, they have only one last resort - a judicial review. Recently, I asked somebody the cost of a judicial review and was staggered when was told it would be somewhere in the region of £100,000. A person should be able to go to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government for a final decision rather than embark on a Judicial review. Some 90 per cent of people could not pay for such a review and if refused permission by An Bord Pleanála, they have nowhere to turn. The Minister should have a final say or should be able to explain the reason a person has been refused permission. We should forget about judicial reviews because they are too expensive.

Senator Chambers: I appreciate the document which has been presented. This is a great opportunity to look at this document and at aspects which have been discussed. I am wearing a number of hats in that I am involved in the auctioneering business and in rural development. I see the issue from a number of perspectives and have a genuine interest in the environment and in protecting it. In my experience of dealing with An Bord Pleanála, I have been amazed by the inconsistencies in decisions made by it and by the county councils. Where is the consistency in the planning and development area? I belive An Bord Pleanála has become like the extension of our judicial system. It has become a racket if you can hire the best guys to make the best case for you. It no longer serves the public well. If we are talking about the true essence of democracy and good local government, public representatives being responsible for the decisions they make. Decisions should be taken by local authority planners and should be taken in the best interests of the county. There should not be any Bord Pleanála. Democracy should represent people locally where the issue of development is concerned. It should finish up on the Minister’s desk. Presently An Bord Pleanála is a racket for professionals to make money from fighting both sides of the case. There is no consistency in the decisions being made.

One of the problems local authorities face is the increased volume of work coming in to them. The resources do not exist for local authority staff to enforce the planning decisions which are there. The type of planning decisions which they have to adjudicate have become very complex. In my own county planning applications have increased by 50 to 70 per cent annually. Staff are at their wits’ end trying to deal with them efficiently and provide a public service at the same time. There is a shortage of resources.

Government decisions taken in respect of the tax incentive for rural resorts have not been made with any foresight in relation to good planning and development. It shows a break down in the departmental decision making process as there is not overall though in some of the Government decisions on the encouragement of development. It raises problems in relation to planning and it has a bearing on the ground as to how acceptable the people find these decisions. Not enough thought has gone into the schemes to make them suitable for the people in the counties in which they apply.

We are rightly proud of our environment. Recently Europe has decided to play its part in paying for the retention of the environment, subsidising farmers who are the holders of much of the natural environment in the State. There is nothing worse for an immigrant from the western seaboard than to return home and find his farm has been designated in such a way that he cannot build a house on it. That man should be supported by the State in finding a suitable site for a residence. It is an injustice for him to find his land has been sterilised in the interest of planning and development. The State should provide some alternative accommodation for that man. There are many cases of this, particularly in the resort areas, which should be addressed.

Chairman: I suggest we adjourn further consideration of this item until the next meeting of the committee at which we will consider making comments and recommendations to the Minister, to enable the clerk to the committee to draft a report for consideration I ask members to convey to the clerk any additional recommendations in advance of the next meeting.

I thank Mr. O’Connor and his staff for appearing before us this evening and apologise for keeping them here for so long.

I suggest we postpone the date for discussion of the referendum on the Amsterdam Treaty and item No. 5 to let us discuss item No. 6.

Senator Chambers: With respect, as there are only three or four of us here, I propose we all go.

Deputy Hayes: Regarding item No. 5 and the pre-emptive move to postpone the Amsterdam Treaty discussion, it is important the committee takes a view on this matter. We should take a view on the precise day on which the referendum takes place. At the last committee meeting I made the point that if we could arrive at a consensus on the matter which could then go to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, and accordingly to the Cabinet, it would make sense that we took a decision on that as soon as possible.

I agree to the deferral of item No. 5 on the basis that we will have a meeting to discuss it within a very short time. What is the time frame involved for the next meeting?

Chairman: The next meeting would be on 18 February as the select committee is meeting on 11 February. If Deputy Hayes likes he can make a proposal that we discuss this at the next meeting.

Deputy Hayes: The proposal from the last meeting was that we specifically recommend a day which could then go as a proposal from the committee to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. That was my understanding.

Chairman: The deputy is right but I am considering how late it is and the small number of people present.

Deputy Hayes: I will concede the point if the matter we are supposed to discuss next will be the first item on the agenda at the next committee meeting.

Chairman: We have no problem with that.

Deputy Haughey: There was a parliamentary question tabled today by Deputy Richard Bruton in relation to the submission by the National Youth Council of Ireland. Could that reply be circulated so we have the benefit of the Minister’s views at this stage?

Chairman: We will postpone item No. 5 and take item No. 6.

Is the committee of the view that we should attend? How many is it proposed to send? It is not good value as it means leaving this evening and returning tomorrow evening, The fights are expensive.

Deputy Hayes: I suggest the whips of all parties should meet to discuss this matter. Last year the committee sent three representatives to this conference. As precedent it would good practice to continue with that number this year. In terms of establishing the people involved it should go to the whips of the committee.

Chairman: Is it agreed that we send three people?

Agreed.

Deputy Haughey: I recommend the Chairman and two others.

Chairman: No, thank you.

Deputy O. Mitchel: It might be in our interest, given that our budget is limited, to wait to see what our budget is going to be before deciding on other undertakings.

Chairman: It is likely that we will have in the region of £18,000. If we decide on this we have now spent £3,000.

Deputy Hayes: The agreement was to send three. The people involved will be decided following the Whips meeting.

Chairman: The next meeting of the Committee will be on February 18, at 2.p.m.

The Joint Committee adjourned at 5.30 p.m.