Report of the Local Government Efficiency Review Group

More documents

Recommendations

Info

(LDSIP) and the Community Development Programme (CDP), to add value to those new structures by integrating the 165 Community Development Projects with the LDCs. 12.2.15 There are 52 Local Development Companies and 165 Community Development Projects, each fully staffed and in the case of the LDCs with CEOs at a senior level spending some €110 million, of which €88 million is Exchequer financing and €22 million EU funding. This structure is a not an optimal means of achieving community development goals. The local development landscape is an unnecessarily crowded space. A simpler approach should be taken – local government should be in the lead role locally in this regard. 12.2.16 In the short to medium term, however, the scope for more direct involvement by local authorities with these local development bodies is limited. However, while accepting the potential for fundamental change is constrained in the short term, the Group considers that it is important in terms of efficiency, effectiveness and the correct use of Exchequer resources, local development bodies must work much more closely with their respective local authorities. With this in mind the Group recommends that: • The consolidation of the local development bodies should be intensified, including the integration of the Family Resource Centres with the local development bodies; • The local development bodies must closely align the delivery of their programmes and plans with those of the relevant local authorities to ensure maximum value for money and a more focused impact on local communities – in this context local development bodies should put in place arrangements to have their plans approved by their appropriate county/ city council, and to report on the progress made in implementing these plans to local authorities at regular intervals; • All new local development programmes should be placed under the care and control of the relevant local authorities. 12.3 Local Government and County/ City Enterprise Boards 12.3.1 County/ City Enterprise Boards (CEBs) were established in 1993. They provide a range of support in relation to micro enterprise to businesses, community groups, individuals, etc. They operate under the aegis of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation and are supported by a unit located in Enterprise Ireland. 12.3.2 The Special Group on Public Service Numbers and Expenditure Programmes recommended that CEBs should be transferred to Enterprise Ireland. However, that report also made a strong case that other relevant local development functions should be delivered through the local government system. While there is still merit in this recommendation, the Group recommends an alternative course which is to integrate the County/ 156
City Enterprise Boards with county/ city councils. This would offer a number of particular advantages, including: • There is a strong relationship between both local authorities and the CEBs since their establishment in the early 1990s. County/ city councils set them up initially and staffed them. They continue to play a strong role in their operation and direction. A number of councillors, as well as the county/ city manager or his/ her nominee sit on the Board. Local authorities are therefore, already key actors in the operation of CEBs and also played a central role in their formative years; • The business support role of the CEBs would fit well with both the wider economic development brief of local authorities, as well as the support arrangements recently put in place by all county/ city councils to support enterprise (such as Business Support Units to act as a point of contact to ensure a quick, coordinated response to businesses from local authorities in areas such as planning, water and roads, and CDB Economic Sub-Committees to support the co-ordination of economic development and promotion in the local area); • CEBs operate under procedures and systems similar to other public bodies, which generally mirror local government systems such as financial accounting/ management systems. Sustaining these administrative arrangements carries significant overheads, especially for relatively small organisations such as CEBs. Efficiency savings would be achieved if these and other overheads were transferred to and carried out by local authorities. This in turn would allow a greater proportion of CEB budgets to be spent on the primary mission of the Boards, namely enterprise supports, rather than administrative overheads; • As part of their operation, there is a regular need for information exchange and interaction between CEBs and local authorities, especially in latter’s role as planning and sanitary authorities – this includes ensuring that CEB clients comply with planning and environmental requirements. This would be streamlined through the integration of CEBs and local authorities; • The continuing involvement of other CEB members/ sectors on the Board of CEBs could be ensured by way of committees established under the local authority or under the aegis of the County/ City Development Board (on which the CEBs are represented). 12.3.3 The integration of the County/ City Enterprise Boards with county/ city councils would result in a greater re-alignment of local economic development and supports to businesses, and a saving on administrative overheads incurred by the Boards in their present form. 12.3.4 The Group, therefore, considers that County/ City Enterprise Boards should be integrated within their respective county/ city local authorities. The rationalisation of CEB structures would also take account of the proposed joint administrative areas (see section 6.4), resulting in a corresponding reduction in the number of CEBs. 157
Page 1 and 2:
Report of the Local Government Effi
Page 3 and 4:
5. Organisational Efficiency Issues
Page 5 and 6:
14. Recommendations 14.1 Recommenda
Page 7 and 8:
associated Government Statement, ne
Page 9 and 10:
more focussed than previously on mu
Page 11 and 12:
ating town councils is largely repr
Page 13 and 14:
• The provision of quality custom
Page 15 and 16:
1.7 Compliance Requirements on Loca
Page 17 and 18:
2.1 National Public Finances 2. Bud
Page 19 and 20:
Figure 2.2 - Total Local Authority
Page 21 and 22:
evenue were needed for the local go
Page 23 and 24:
Figure 2.3 - Sources of Local Autho
Page 25 and 26:
Figure 2.4 -Sources of Local Author
Page 27 and 28:
Figure 2.5 - Local Authority Curren
Page 29 and 30:
Payroll Expenses Table 2.4 - Breakd
Page 31 and 32:
2. Reintroducing domestic water cha
Page 33 and 34:
Income €m € 1,600.0 € 1,400.0
Page 35 and 36:
3. Local Government Experience of E
Page 37 and 38:
maintenance are provided by the cou
Page 39 and 40:
well as reductions in the number of
Page 41 and 42:
4. Context - Looking Forward 4.1 Na
Page 43 and 44:
4.2.6 Aside from keeping costs down
Page 45 and 46:
5. Organisational Efficiency Issues
Page 47 and 48:
statutorily vested in certain ratin
Page 49 and 50:
5.5.6 Roads are classified into nat
Page 51 and 52:
the majority of town councils, a pl
Page 53 and 54:
5.7 Other Local Bodies 5.7.1 A smal
Page 55 and 56:
• County council offices / area o
Page 57 and 58:
Figure 6.1 - Local Authority Staff
Page 59 and 60:
Figure 6.2 - Staffing per 1,000 Pop
Page 61 and 62:
Figure 6.5 - Staffing Per 1,000 Pop
Page 63 and 64:
Cluster Data Cluster Mayo Roscommon
Page 65 and 66:
senior management staff - for examp
Page 67 and 68:
ut this figure varies from 22% to 5
Page 69 and 70:
eplacement with lower level staff w
Page 71 and 72:
Corporate Services, HR, IT, and Fin
Page 73 and 74:
to provide services in the corporat
Page 75 and 76:
Recommendations: 6.11.1 In summary,
Page 77 and 78:
7.1 Local Government Audit 7. Value
Page 79 and 80:
through open recruitment. Opportuni
Page 81 and 82:
the Director and relevant local gov
Page 83 and 84:
7.6.3 Local authorities should cons
Page 85 and 86:
8. Shared Services 8.1 Shared Servi
Page 87 and 88:
8.2.6 Many parts of the United Stat
Page 89 and 90:
8.4 Shared ‘Back Office’ Servic
Page 91 and 92:
8.4.12 For example, recruitment to
Page 93 and 94:
approach which will be used to asse
Page 95 and 96:
enefits in terms of pooling resourc
Page 97 and 98:
while also improving the service fo
Page 99 and 100:
Implementation Group suggested in s
Page 101 and 102:
9.2.4 The Local Government e-Procur
Page 103 and 104:
forms are now captured online. This
Page 105 and 106: Table 9.1 - Non-Pay Items Procured
Page 107 and 108: 9.5.10 LAQuotes is used by the vast
Page 109 and 110: sectoral level, to promote exchange
Page 111 and 112: 10.1 Housing 10. Efficiencies in Pr
Page 113 and 114: 10.1.9 Two issues arise in this res
Page 115 and 116: that may arise in this respect as p
Page 117 and 118: the new Housing and Sustainable Com
Page 119 and 120: 10.2.6 To date, the emphasis of tol
Page 121 and 122: 10.2.14 The Group also noted the la
Page 123 and 124: • Allocating grants to improve th
Page 125 and 126: 10.3.11 It would also facilitate th
Page 127 and 128: consumption (see also section 9 in
Page 129 and 130: Financial Summary: Through a combin
Page 131 and 132: current levels of resourcing for pl
Page 133 and 134: educe the number of such transactio
Page 135 and 136: Financial Summary: Through a combin
Page 137 and 138: in the trend of rationalisation of
Page 139 and 140: Table 10.1 - Motor Taxation Classes
Page 141 and 142: detail in issuing licences. Motor t
Page 143 and 144: 11.1 Treasury Management 11. Other
Page 145 and 146: for the overdraft, has the potentia
Page 147 and 148: • The online Roadworks Control sy
Page 149 and 150: management, etc. Use of professiona
Page 151 and 152: • Projects to streamline existing
Page 153 and 154: 12. Local Government and the Wider
Page 155: significant administrative overhead
Page 159 and 160: suggests that financial incentives
Page 161 and 162: 13. Cost Recovery and Revenue Issue
Page 163 and 164: 13.1.11 The Group considers that th
Page 165 and 166: Minister for Education and Skills t
Page 167 and 168: legislation provides that arrears o
Page 169 and 170: Recommendations: 13.5.1 In summary,
Page 171 and 172: 14.1 Recommendations 14. Recommenda
Page 173 and 174: 25. Financial performance indicator
Page 175 and 176: Housing 48. Housing sections within
Page 177 and 178: Planning monitoring by other public
Page 179 and 180: Local Government and the Wider Publ
Page 181 and 182: that just because these recommendat
Page 183 and 184: Appendix 1 - List of Submissions Re
Page 185 and 186: Appendix 2 - Local Government Effic
Page 187 and 188: Gross Current Income by Source and
Page 189 and 190: County Councils Housing and Buildin
Page 191 and 192: Town Councils Housing and Building
Page 193 and 194: Non-Rating Town Councils (1) Paymen
Page 195 and 196: Regional Assembly Payments Receipts
Page 197 and 198: Local Authority Current Expenditure
Page 199 and 200: Town Council Population Size (Censu
Page 201 and 202: Appendix 5 - Local Government Net B
Page 203 and 204: Former Town Commissioners 2010 Net
Page 205 and 206: Appendix 7 - Performance Indicators
Page 207 and 208:
Appendix 9 - Unaccounted for Water
Page 209:
Appendix 11 - Membership of County
show all

Report of the Local Government Efficiency Review Group

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?