Phil Hogan on the alignment of local government and local development

The alignment of local government and local development will bring public oversight, says Phil Hogan.

MUCH comment has been made in the media in recent months in relation to my proposals for the alignment of local government and local development.

There has been talk of exclusion of community involvement in decision- making, the loss of funding, and large- scale job losses. There has even been talk of privatisation which is ridiculous given that the companies involved are already private companies. What we will see, however, is an element of public oversight which has hitherto been lacking.

The alignment steering group I set up to review this area noted the complex range of structures and entities that deliver local and community development supports, all with their own administration overheads. The group reported that these administration functions carry significant costs and can divert resources from frontline services. The group also noted the duplication and overlap that resulted from the complexity of the local development landscape. I make no apology for the fact that I intend to tackle these issues. We have to look for more cost-effective delivery mechanisms in the current economic climate.

Action Programme for Effective Local Government — Putting People First recommends greater alignment between local government and local development, including the 50 local development companies that currently deliver important programmes for my department, amongst others.

The Government accepted the recommendations made by the alignment steering group. Under those proposals, local development companies will continue to have a role in local development delivery. There is no logic, therefore, to the statement that this alignment will lead to massive job losses. What we need is a more streamlined system, which is fit for purpose, and eliminates unnecessary duplication.

In recent days, some very misleading claims have been made including:

- Privatisation of community services.

This is wrong. The services that are to be aligned with local government are not being privatised. These were never undertaken by the public sector. These services were always undertaken by the private local development/partnership companies.

However, due to legal advice, my department has to undertake a tendering process for the successor of the Local and Community Development Programme, but I would still see the local development companies, because of the huge amount of experience they have, to be very well placed to apply for the new contracts.

- Loss of social inclusion service.

Wrong again. We recognise that local development companies deliver a range of programmes and of course we do not want any reduction in the standard of those programmes. It is not proposed that the programmes or services will cease. In the case of the Local and Community Development Programme, due to legal advice, the department will be undertaking a tendering process.

If local development companies are flexible and responsive, then they will respond to the changes that will inevitably happen in the future.

- Loss of community involvement in decision-making.

Once again, wrong. There are attempts to paint a picture that alignment means local authorities will make decisions that were previously made by the community. This is simply not true. I am setting up local community development committees that will have a very high level of participation by community interests, also including the local development companies. Even with current private partnerships, decision making is supposed to be with the company’s board and in many cases that works well. But that is not always the case and the level of true involvement in decision making by board members can vary from company to company. I will be ensuring that the correct representation is maintained, especially in terms of community representatives.

In conclusion, I want to see the committees operate efficiently and in the best interests of the communities which they will serve. My interest is to ensure that we maximise the amount of money available for community projects and programmes rather than on wasteful duplication. This will require the community sector to stay involved in their continuing good work in the operation and implementation of programmes.

* Phil Hogan is minister for the environment, community, and local government