Low standards in high places

In a true democracy local government officials wouldn't feel obliged to issue a press release when a senior planner speaks their mind. 

However that's what happened when Dublin City Council Senior Planner Kieran Rose said that Minister Kelly ‘has been bamboozled by certain powerful vested property interests.’  Rose was referring to Kelly's newly published Design Standards for New Apartments which roll back on improvements made under previous Governments.

The Council under Chief Executive Owen Keegan issued a press release saying that “The comments, while made in a personal capacity, are both inappropriate and regrettable and do not reflect the views and opinions of management of the City Council.” If that isn't a slap-down then what is?  Group think and the 'uno duce, una voce' approach is precisely what got Ireland into difficulty in the first place. We're in trouble if public servants aren't allowed speak their mind.   The etymology of bamboozle lies in the French word embabouiner "to make a fool (literally 'baboon') of, and there is certainly a Neanderthal feel to those who are arguing for lower standards. Let's not forget that some years ago the Construction Industry Federation argued against mandatory insulation in new homes, saying it would drive up the price of housing. These same vested interests clearly have the ear of their Minister.

If Labour's Kelly really wants to increase housing supply he should spend more time talking to the European Investment Bank to release funding for housing. He could also legislate to ensure that a portion of semi-state pension funds are invested in new homes. It seems crazy that when there's over a billion euro in CIE pension funds yet none of these monies are obliged to be invested in housing as they are in other jurisdictions. He must also sit down with Credit Unions, Trade Unions and other bodies to ensure that they too play their part in tackling the housing crisis. He could modify the much heralded 'Living City' scheme for older buildings that has been spectacularly unsuccessful. Finally (dare I mention it) he could allocate sufficient funds to local authorities so that they can build as much housing as they did in previous times when there were housing shortages.

It would be shameful if Labour's legacy in the Customs House were to be smaller apartments, lower ceilings, less storage space, and new homes with no access to sunlight, yet this is now set to happen under Alan Kelly's watch. Kelly has bought into the 'starter homes' and 'first time buyers' language that characterised Liam Carroll's Zoe shoe-box apartments back in the last century. Five years ago the Government that I was part of phased out bedsits. Now, thanks to Alan Kelly they are on the way back. Earlier this year when a u-turn on bedsits was first mooted ALONE – a housing and advocacy charity for the vulnerable stated that they campaigned “against this type of accommodation for over 30 years and we don’t want to go back. We would be concerned that it would be the most vulnerable who would be forced into this type of accommodation, often located in old buildings with sub-standard conditions.  ALONE believes the government needs to look at long term strategic solutions to providing quality housing instead of short term reactions to the current crisis.” It seems curious that the Labour Party isn’t doing more to provide quality state-built homes as they did when in Government previously.

The Urban Regeneration and Housing Act 2015 introduces a vacant land levy to put pressure on land hoarders to build and make best use of their lands but its introduction had been long-fingered until 2018. If this provision was enacted sooner it might put pressure on land-owners to make better use of their sites to apply for planning permission and build the housing that is so badly needed. Further back-peddling is underway with the repeal of the new windfall/betterment tax of 80% on trading profits and capital gains arising from disposals of land that was built into the National Asset Management Act. This provision was a positive development to deter speculation and yet Fine Gael and Labour removed this provision in the 2014 Finance Act. This will encourage speculative rezoning and higher land and housing prices.

Minister Kelly hasn't provided for any public consultation prior to making these new standards. This means his changes may be in breach of the Aarhus Convention which states that Government shall endeavour to provide opportunities for public participation in the preparation of policies relating to the environment including housing. This one could run and run.

It's Time for a Greater Dublin Mayor

In 1991 I was elected as a councillor onto Dublin City Council. Before we took our seats on the new City Council we were issued with robes to wear for the formal first meeting. As a councillor my robes were green and blue. Councillors first elected in their ward were referred to as aldermen and wore the same robes but with an extra yellow strip indicating their status. 

However, as I walked into my first meeting in Council Chamber I spied someone wearing bright purple robes. This was Frank Feely the unelected City Manager, whose self-chosen robes summed up the anti-democratic nature of local government in Ireland since the 1920s. Not only did he get to choose his own robes, but he, and all other unelected city officials then and now have huge powers over decisions that affect our lives.

A year ago I tweeted that the “Dublin Mayor idea will die a slow painful death by way of committee. Bad for Dublin, bad for Ireland.” Unless there is a change of heart by Fingal councillors this may well be the outcome. Apparently they aren’t overly enthusiastic about a directly-elected mayor, and have the power to block the proposal. Asking the sitting councillors of Dublin whether they want a directly elected mayor is like asking turkeys for their views on Christmas. They may well decline, given that their status depends on the status quo. Had the Green Party’s proposals for a directly elected Mayor for Dublin come to fruition we would have had a Mayor for all of Dublin directly elected by the people of Dublin next May, rather than the Fine Gael proposals that at best will result in a mayoral  election in five years time.

The blame can be firmly put at Phil Hogan’s door for setting up a process that seems doomed to fail, unless there is a change of heart. Even his master-plan for local government reform “Putting People First” contains a breath-taking anti-urban bias as he proposes giving Dublin City equal powers to Westmeath on regional issues.  It seems clear, that although Phil Hogan is Minister for the Environment, he is also a Fine Gael TD for the Carlow-Kilkenny constituency, and doesn’t want to devolve power to Dublin or other cities.

Currently national government decide on the important issues that cities should be deciding, and councillors are mostly left to sort out issues of maladministration. It doesn’t have to be this way; around the world great cities have good mayors. There are many examples of mayoral vision from strong and coherent city leaders. The challenge in Dublin is that the current divide and conquer approach of four different local authorities with four different agendas, managers and mayors elected on a revolving basis is confusing and dysfunctional. Henry Kissinger asked who he would talk to if he wanted to talk to Europe. We need someone to talk to when we want to talk to Dublin. The current mayoral system operates on a revolving door basis every twelve months, and ensuring a disturbing lack of continuity in city governance. We need a strong voice, an Ed Koch, a Pasqual Maragall or, whether we like him or not, a Boris Johnson. We need someone who has a strong, coherent vision for Dublin.

All across the world, strong cities have directly elected mayors. Georges Frêche one of the most colourful and controversial voices in the south of France was mayor of Montpelier for 27 years. Under his mayoralty the city thrived. That is why most French people when asked say they would like to live in Montpelier. Barcelona would not be the same without the legacy of Pasqual Maragall, who transformed that city from industrial backwater to hosting the 1992 Olympics. He made the city tick, and work effectively because he was a strong and dynamic civil leader who united the city and brought the Games to Barcelona. We all remember the scenes at the diving events, where the divers competed with the city as a backdrop. That was no accident, it happened because there was a strong mayor. We need such a mayor in Dublin.

We need the strong strategies and policies, which come with a directly-elected mayor. Four separate systems are not working. When Fingal speaks with one voice, Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown with another, South Dublin and Dublin City with others still, there is no coherence, and no metropolitan vision for the nation’s capital. Visitors who come to Dublin are constantly confused about the various mayors from each of the city’s local authorities. It is not just visitors but Dubliners who do not understand how the mayoralty chain revolves every 12 months between different people who are briefly a voice for Dublin and then disappear from public view. However, against the odds though we have had some great mayors in Dublin city. I have strong memories of Carmencita Hederman and her fantastic contribution to the city during its Millennium year. Half way through the millennium year, she was replaced. That is no way to run a city or a region. Dublin is the driver for so much of the nation. We cannot change leaders every 12 months and expect coherent and effective leadership for the city.

If one does not like what the mayor does, one can still kick him or her out by using one’s vote. Under the current system this cannot happen. This gives the permanent government of county managers who in place for seven years the upper hand, and diminishes the role of elected representatives.

The legislation introduced by the Green Party in the last Government provided for a mayor who would co-ordinate water, waste, transport and planning policies. Time and again, we return to the legacy of bad planning decisions across the country. The people of Dublin are still picking up the tab for mad rezoning decisions that took place in Dublin County Council in the 1980s. Councillors were allowed rezone land without any sense of responsibility and without a mayor who had the bigger picture about what the city might be. When it comes down to strategy, plans and implementation, a directly elected Dublin mayor will have a coherent voice and will be there for the long haul.

In many places, a city’s lifeblood - its economy, cultural life and sense of place - is channelled through its mayor’s office. One only has to look at Shirley Clarke Franklin in Atlanta, Martin O’Malley in Baltimore, and Fiorello La Guardia in New York City, all strong dynamic people who made things happen. I can easily recall the last four mayors of New York City – Ed Koch, David Dinkins, Michael Bloomberg and Rudolph Giuliani.  They all contributed to making New York great. The same kind of voice is needed in Dublin. The nations’ capital needs a directly elected mayor. Such an office will be good for Dublin City, the four counties of Dublin, and for Ireland. With the election of a mayor, democracy would be transformed and the days of unelected managers who could chose to wear purple robes will be gone for ever.

Let's shed some light on City and County Managers’ meetings

It's time that more was known about meetings of the County and City Managers’ Association (CCMA). They're one of the most powerful organisations in the country. Their thirty-nine members have much of the responsibility for the spending of  about €4 billion a year on running local authorities, and around €3 billion a year on capital expenditure. That's serious money. Clearly they've a lot to talk about. And yet when you try and find out how often they meet or what decisions they make make it can be quite a challenge.

The Local Government Management Agency (pictured above) hosts the CCMA's  web pages which state that the CCMA works "to ensure that the influence of Managers is brought to bear on the development and implementation of relevant policy." It goes to say that "CCMA represents its members on external committees, steering groups and organisations and develops evidence-based positions and makes submissions on relevant issues." That all sounds good and worthy, but it would be useful if the minutes of their meetings and any associated reports were made available to the public so that we know what is discussed. Greater transparency could improve the quality of the decisions that are made, and reduce legal challenges and appeals.

I served for over a decade on Dublin City Council as a councillor, and had the opportunity to watch Managers exercise their power and influence over major investment decisions on transport, waste, water and other issues. After the  Local Government (Dublin) Act 1993 was enacted, three new County Managers were appointed to the new counties of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, Fingal, and South Dublin. These Managers meet on a regular basis to discuss matters of common concern.  It stands to reason that these Managers have to liaise with each other and co-ordinate what they do, but the public interest would be better served if the minutes of these meetings were placed in the public domain. In theory the powers of the managers and those of the council are balanced, however the growing complexity of decision making means that many issues have been resolved before they are presented  to the Council. I sometimes got the feeling that the meetings before the council meeting were the ones that really counted. 

Occasionally the corporate view of the CCMA is visible when they make submissions that enter the public domain. Back in 2010 in a submission to the Department of the Environment they suggested that the burden of compliance with environmental regulation on Local Authorities was high, and that there should be a move towards self-compliance. Their submission also proposed that the EPA should scale back on monitoring licensed facilities where historic results have remained constant. You could argue that constant values should require a more detailed inspection procedure. Of course unnecessary red tape should be got rid of, but where do you draw the line?

 All too often when it comes to the big decisions that will affect the city for the next hundred years there appears to be an over-emphasis on solutions that favour large new-build engineering projects. The future to our water woes requires a large new pipe to the River Shannon; The waste problem demands a major incinerator; Sewage treatment can be solved with another huge wastewater treatment plant in Ringsend, and on it goes. Might this be put down to the managers meeting in conclave on a regular basis? I suspect it is. On many occasions I've found myself arguing for conservation measures, rainwater harvesting, recycling instead of new mega-projects, yet the City Manager insisted on the silver bullet of the major project that will solve all our ills. I suspect this is partially due to the heavy engineering and administrative background of many of these individuals. It may also be influenced by the outsourcing of many of these large decisions to consultancy firms that like to present the single large solution to the problem. An exception to this has been the move by the four Dublin Local Authorities to implement Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) for rainwater management in greater Dublin, but it is the exception, not the rule.

The problem in these uncertain times is that we can't quite predict the level of growth or demand that over the next five years, let alone the next twenty. This creates a challenge for decision-makers. It may mean that spending half a billion euro on building a pipe to the Shannon for Dublin's future water supplies is not be the most cost-effective solution. Perhaps we should be investing money in fixing more of the leaks that waste 36% of our water before it gets to the taps. Perhaps we ought to have considered alternatives to a single large incinerator in Ringsend where the EU has had to call a halt to a client management and public relations contract that has cost us €30m before the project has even been built. Who knows? Of course the lead-in time to these projects can be lengthy, and this is an added complication, but the public interest might best be served by asking people for their opinions and input at the earliest possible stage.  

Environmental Impact Assessment tries to ensure that the alternatives to any project are given a fair hearing, but from my experience the consideration of these alternatives is not explored in depth. In recent years there has been a significant shift towards involving citizens in decision-making at the initial stage of the process. The Aarhus Convention established this principle which has been implemented by various Directives from the European Union. I suspect that if the general public were more involved at the brain-storming stage of the process we would come to more sustainable and cost-effective solutions. 

In these uncertain times maybe we should be opting for smaller projects to solve some of the big questions that City and County Councils face. These can be then be scaled up, if required. However county managers seem to have a fondness for bringing the big project solution rather than the question to the council chamber.  City and county managers should be more open about what they discuss, and what proposals they are making on on our behalf when they meet. The CCMA Executive tells us that they lead on the key issues to be tackled – mainly “big picture” / high level issues. In fairness to them they did open a twitter account last April but it has only had nine tweets over the last eight months. That's a start, at least, but in the twenty-first century in the interests of transparency the details of their deliberations should be available to all. If we know what city and county managers are discussing when they meet we might have a more informed public debate and discussion at an earlier stage. Chances are it would lead to better decisions.

Re-Forming Dublin

That was enjoyable - a lunchtime conversation about the city and how we can design systems and services which unlock or enable rather than curb or control.

The week's events are being run by PIVOT Dublin, an loose gathering that brings together the four Dublin Local Authorities and others to ensure that design issues are given a decent airing. They're taking place down in the Filmbase building down on the Curved Street in Temple Bar.

Here's some notes that I used for my contribution:

1. Knowledge is power. Let’s spread the knowledge through transparency and openness:
Years ago a copy of the Dublin City Council Yearbook and Diary was crucial to effecting change. Once you had a copy of it you knew who was in charge of particular parts of the City Council and how to contact them. These days we use the web, but many Local Authority websites are just awful, starting with Dublin City Council. The general public simply want to know who does what, and how to contact them. We need a simple organogram for the Council that gives us the name, contact details and the responsibilities of the key players. It should be simple and clear, visible on the home page of the Council, and updated regularly.

The Dublinked site is a good start, but we need to go much further. Once we know who does what we then need to make all the information available. When Bloomberg was mayor of New York he said:
“If you can't measure it, you can't manage it” and I tend to agree. Every public authority, be it Dublin City Council or the OPW should put every land holding that they control up on the web in an open-source format so that we can start to think about what public lands and property (that’s your land and our land) should, or could be used for. Think about that huge site between Smithfield and the Four Courts that’s lain vacant for fifteen years. It could be a city farm, or allotments. The All-Ireland Research Observatory (AIRO) is doing some of this kind of work, and widgets like FixmyStreet.ie will also be useful, but we could go so much further in involving citizens in the future of their city.

2. Our democratic power structures need to change from the top down
I’m a city boy and I believe cities deserve more powers. Dublin was badly divided twenty years ago into Fingal, Dublin South, the City and Dún Laoghaire Rathdown. That doesn’t reflect real city. A city of a million people, or closer to two needs a voice. The four Dublin Councils need to be divided into smaller Councils that have a more coherent civic identity, around about ten in all. We need a metro-Mayor and a a Dublin Metropolitan Assembly to make the strategic decisions for the entire metropolitan region. Instead of four councils we need closer to ten. We need to give the Mayor powers of transport and planning at Regional level. Currently we have revolving-door members in each Council every year. That means in five years we get twenty different mayors for Dublin. That can’t be right. We need one mayor who serves a five year term, and if you don’t like what she does, kick  her out. Look at the experience of Pasqual Maragall in Barcelona, Georges Frêche in Montpelier or Rahm Emanuel Chicago. Strong and vibrant cities have great mayors.

3. Make decisions based on evidence, and involve the public:
Let’s place power at the appropriate levels. In some cases we need to devolve down and in others we need to regionalise up. Big city problems like water, waste, energy and transport need a regional focus. For Urban village issues like new parks and playgrounds, taming the traffic, civic spaces and libraries let’s let a new Clontarf or Dundrum Council make the call.

Back in 1969 American Sociologist Sherry Arnstein came up with the idea of the a ladder structure to measure the degree of citizen participation in decision making. The eight rungs look like this:

1. Manipulation
2. Therapy
3. Informing
4. Consultation
5. Placation
6. Partnership
7. Delegated power
8. Citizen control

Most of the time in Ireland we’re at 1 or 2 on the ladder. On a good day we get to 3. We need to find our way to 6, 7 and 8. It’s time that we moved on. Planning can be done on a collaborative basis at a local level using Local Area Plans that we can all buy into. Let’s give some power down and see what happens. Electronic involvement is a useful tool, but don’t let it take over. I’d still like to see a notice board with an agenda on the railings outside City Hall. Collaborative structures that harness the energy of the Occupy movement, of the Irish idea of meitheal point to better ways to involve everyone in decisions.

We had a great discussion this lunchtime, ably chaired by Ré Dubhtaigh. Evelyn Hannon from Dublin City Council argued that the Council provides the theatre, but we all have to put on the play. It was a good metaphor for the role of citizens in their city.

Re-Forming our systems isn't easy, it requires courage and conviction from those in power. In the last Government the legislation providing for directed mayors almost became a reality. Let's try and ensure that Phil Hogan delivers on a directly elected mayor for Dublin, and a radical shake-up for our current system of local government which currently often divides rather than unites communities.

And now the weather

It has been a tough month.

The arrival of the IMF has changed everything.

That’s why we decided a fortnight ago that an election is required at the first opportunity.

Before that happens we want to approve a budget and the accompanying legislation that allows it to be implemented. Governing requires the making of decisions, and tough ones at that. Currently we’re borrowing two out of every five euro that we pay public servants in wages, and that has to change. The €85 billion in monies from the EU and the IMF gives the State the breathing room to make these adjustments in how Ireland is run in future years.

Some of the measures mark a move away from the dangerous boom-time revenues such as stamp duty on housing that we became over-reliant on during the Celtic Tiger years. I'm glad that the Four Year Recovery Plan includes a Site Valuation Tax to fund local services, as well as an increase in the price of carbon that will allow us to decrease our dependence on carbon. These reforms can help ensure that Ireland is better placed to weather future economic storms.

Meanwhile, as Ireland freezes, it has been a mixed-bag of a first week at the Climate Change talks in Cancun in Mexico. Hopefully week two will lay the ground-work for a comprehensive agreement in South Africa next year. The Guardian has a nifty online calculator allowing you to reduce the UK's carbon footprint here. Closer to home I'm hopeful that our own Climate Change Bill will be published this side of Christmas. Ireland's emissions reduced significantly last year, but the Bill will put the onus on all Government Departments to identify and tackle reductions in emissions in their respective sectors. Over on the "Think or Swim" blog John Gibbons discusses whether climate change is contributing to the big freeze.

I'm heartened by the amount of discussion in recent times around the theme of political reform. This morning I was alternating between listening to Irish Independent Editor Gerry O'Regan receiving a grilling from Ivan Yeats on Newstalk, and Fintan O'Toole on RTE Radio One discussing his petition to reform Irish politics. O'Regan was getting a hard time for the role of his paper in fueling the fire of property speculation, but he seemed to sidestep the issue by saying that his principle role was to increase newspaper sales which seemed like a fairly honest admission. O'Toole was being pushed as to why he wouldn't run for office himself, but stated that he was happier stimulating debate. I'm in broad agreement with the ten points on O'Toole's petition, and feel his proposal to end clientilism is a good one. The New Zealand electoral system seems similar to what he is proposing. Half the Parliament there are elected on a list system where you vote for the Party rather than the individual, and half are elected on a system broadly similar to our own, and I feel something along similar lines is appropriate.

Perhaps the additional radical step of rewriting the constitution is needed to help draw together the many threads of discussion that are currently taking place on the airwaves and elsewhere. It is something that the people of Iceland have embarked upon, and could be a way to tackle parliamentary reform, as well as enshrining ideas around equality, property and family rights that have been much debated over the last few years.

In the meantime 7th December is Budget day, and I'm hoping that Brian Lenihan will carry through on some of the reforms that we've been discussing with him that were mentioned by the Tanaiste on the Week in Politics last Sunday.

Eleventh Hour

It's late, and I'm tired.

It's been a tough year for the Country, for the Government and for the Green Party.

This week has been one of the most difficult I've faced in my 27 years in the Party. If we don't conclude talks tomorrow morning with Fianna Fáil on transforming the Programme for Government we walk.

I was on Late Date on RTE Radio One earlier this evening saying all of this. It was curiously cathartic to talk about how I felt and outline where things are at. Our team -Mary White TD, Minister Eamon Ryan and Senator Dan Boyle, have had over forty hours of talks over the last eight days with Ministers Dermot Ahern, Mary Hanafin and Noel Dempsey. I don't know if we can reach agreement. From the start we've been emphasising jobs, political reform and eduction as being key areas where we need to transform this government. There's been progress, but the clock is ticking.

Our membership have called a special convention this Saturday in the RDS in Dublin to decide whether or not we stay in government, and whether or not to support the NAMA legislation. We require a two-thirds majority to stay in government. A motion to vote down NAMA and end our participation in government would also require a two thirds vote. The bar is set high to stay. This will be the fifth time this year that members have met to discuss crucial issues for the Party.

The strains and stress take their toll. At a personal level its becoming increasingly difficult to manage the huge demands that are being made on all of us. There's a balance that has to be struck between family life, responsibilities to the constituency, to the Green Party, and to Government. You can never get it all right, but between the normal demands of a Dáil constituency, the responsibilities to attendance and participation in Dáil committees and votes, and the concerns of the Party it can be a mountain to climb. Oh, and I left out the work life-balance part.

I'm trying to be fairly philosophical about it all, but it's not easy. I really believe that green ideas are crucial to getting us through the current economic and environmental challenges. We've got to move Ireland from the boom-bust buildings and big cars fixation into an Ireland that's better planned with a more diversified economy. It'll involve green jobs - in the digital economy, agriculture, renewable energy, sustainable construction and smarter travel. It will be based on confidence in the political system, investment in education and proper planning. There has to be a move to resource taxes, and away from taxes on labour. I believe the Green Party is best placed to help guide, lead and transform politics through the tough decisions that lie ahead for several years to come.

I met someone from the Labour Party today. She talked about how necessary it is to have Green Party as a force in Irish politics, to tackle energy and climate change issues. I also bumped into a Fianna Fáil back-bencher who spoke in desperation about the need to be relieved from the necessity of almost daily funeral attendances of constituents to allow him to concentrate on policy and legislation. The political system requires systemic reforms.

There's a yearning for so many of the ideas that the Green Party brings to the table, whether it be on environment challenges, local government reform, or matters as simple as Safe Routes to School. Its a tough, tough time to be in Government. The John O'Donoghue issue was the straw that almost broke the camel's back for the Greens. I'm hoping that it will act as a catalyst for all of us to reform, and transform the politics of business as usual.

Politics is never easy. I remember having intense debates and rows twenty-five years ago about whether the Greens should be a campaigning NGO or actually contest elections. We chose the latter, and entered a world that is rarely black or white, and that has many shades of grey. Looking back, I think that was the right choice.

I've been on the phone a lot in the past few days talking with Party members. I'm telling them that if we do get a deal that transforms the Programme for Government, then we'll put it to our members on Saturday and ask them for supoport. I'm saying that the NAMA vote is a tough one, but that we have got changes in the Bill, and there are more to come, and that on balance I believe it is the best option to deal with a banking crisis that was not of our making.

A lot depends on what happens over the next 12, and perhaps 48 hours. I'll try and keep you posted.

Crawling from the wreckage

Ouch, that hurt!

It's small comfort, but it was great to meet up with Garret Fitzgerald and Mick Rafferty in the RTÉ Election studio in Donnybrook as the votes were being counted on Saturday 6th June.

Mick took over on Dublin City Council after Tony Gregory stepped down, and after a few years he passed on his seat to Maureen O'Sullivan who was in the process of being elected to the Dáil that Saturday that we were in studio. Mick is a real renaissance man, and compared to his work as an activist, organiser and Thespian I suspect that the minutiae of Dublin City Council's Traffic sub-Committee didn't quite engage him sufficiently. Garret was in fine form, and had several tomes of results from elections past with him, and almost every number on each page had his own annotations about the particular results.

It was a rough result for the Green Party and it is tough not to have representation for the next five years on Dublin and Dún Laoghaire Councils. There's enormous scope in the capital to deliver on Green Party policies, and it hurts to be sit so hard within the Pale. We have achieved a considerable amount in the Departments that fall under control of Green Ministers, but there wasn't enough airspace to make that point in the recent campaign. People were mad as hell about the wasted opportunities of the boom years and while Fianna Fáil were taking the brunt of the kick, we were also a target.

We could walk away from government, and unless there's greater delivery of Green Party policies, particularly in areas of responsibility that don't fall directly under our control I think we should. The failure to publish the Civil Unions legislation before the Local and European elections definitely cost us votes. There's other areas where we have to ramp up Green Party policy delivery. Another round of significant cuts is on the cards in the December budget, and unless we see reforms within education, health and social welfare, it would be hard to stand over additional billions being pared from their budgets.

I'm hoping that the Commission on Taxation's Report which is due out in July makes the case for radical changes in how we fund local government. I want to see local authorities given financial autonomy, and that may well be proposed. Some form of residential charge may be needed to replace the windfall receipts that we got from stamp duty during the boom years. I also want to see a climate change levy, and an assurance that any such charge will be poverty-proofed. The home energy grants are already creating jobs, and there's huge potential to ramp up and expand that programme to ensure that people on lower incomes have their homes well insulated and draught-proofed.

Speaking of reform, that's the theme of next week's Leviathan gig down at the Button Factory. I'll be speaking on the theme of Does Ireland Now Need Radical Political Reform?" along with Killian Forde, Noel Dempsey and that McWilliams fellah.

It's on Wednesday next 24th June 2009 at 8pm, so if the Government loses the usual 8.30 private members business vote next week, you can blame the Greens.

Batten down the hatches

The next few weeks aren't going to be easy.

The news from the exchequer isn't good, and my pal in Finance says there's more to come. He reckons it'll be 10% cuts all round by the end of the year in order to fill a six billion hole in the coffers. Stamp duty has flat-lined, corporation tax is down, construction receipts are a fraction of their former levels, and retail's looking shaky. Sure, there's still companies moving to Ireland, but you've got too distinguish between the brass plate operations and the operations that bring long term jobs and income to Ireland. Some of the new jobs will come from unusual places. Facebook is contemplating setting up operations here, and the new Irish Mind Series on CNBC is making a pitch to the United States on the added value of Irish education and upbringing on how we work. The massive expansion in access to third level in recent years is breathtaking, but there's concerns out there that quality could suffer as quantity of output increases. I heard rumours recently that they've brought in attendance rolls in some courses in UCD to keep tabs on whether people are making along to lectures that they're taking exams in.

Meanwhile the squeeze is on for various State agencies. Fine Gael's Leo Varadkar (not someone I'm always in agreement with!) brought out a report 'Streamlining Government' in April that has some reasonable suggestions for rationalising the plethora of semi-state bodies. Over the weekend Minister of State for Trade John McGuinness has been making waves with his thoughts on the public service. Some time ago I threw my hat into the ring with an article that you can find here. David Connolly from the Dublin Inner City Partnership didn't agree with some of what I said, and penned his response here.

Five years on I feel more strongly than ever that we need to give real power to local authorities, rather than spinning it off to external agencies, and I worry that we've reduced local government to an exercise in oversight, regulation and enforcement in so many areas. In other countries I suspect that enterprise, development and support to the unemployed are closer to the core competencies of local government than in Ireland.

Since the early nineties we have created a plethora of new bodies: County and City Enterprise boards that support the start-up & development of local business in Ireland; County and City Development Boards that are charged with bringing an integrated approach to the delivery of both State and local development services at local level; and Local Partnerships that respond to long-term unemployment and socioeconomic disadvantage.

Meanwhile within local authorities we've put in place Strategic Policy Committees that are supposed to assist the Council in the formulation, development and review of policy, yet so many of what should be core functions have been spun off. It is no wonder that so many councillors have resigned in recent years. I suspect many have become disenchanted with the rising tide of representations, a salary that fails to reflect the workload, and perhaps most of all a frustration at becoming increasingly distanced from key decision-making functions. I wouldn't abolish City and County Development Boards, Enterprise Boards and Partnerships, they all do good work but I would like to see their work more strongly tied into the heart of local government.

RAPID and CLÁR complicate matters even further. Again they provide a variety of useful funding in targetting graffiti, providing childcare and accessible transport, but perhaps these issues should be core competencies of local government rather than dispensed from on high? RAPID funds everything from estate management, traffic safety and measures that improve equality for women. The lead Department is Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs there and to be honest while I'm grateful for the emails that announce every details of Éamon Ó Cuív's latest disbursement of €1,050 to the North Mon Taekwan-do club in Cork, I'd be happier if the money came directly from the local Council. It has got to stage where you'd almost need a Masters in Community Development to start looking for a grant for traffic calming and that's not the way it ought to be. As a side-bar issue I'm also nervous about the designation of 'most disadvantaged' to particular communities, as it immediately begs the question 'are you in or are you out?'. A sliding scale might be more appropriate.

Proper financing for local government is a crucial issue. The current system whereby local authorities must go cap in hand to central government for any significant capital project is demeaning and over-centralised. The 2006 Indecon Review of Local Government Financing suggested that more financial autonomy could be beneficial, and the more recent Green Paper from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government "Stronger Local Government - Options for Change" referred to the this challenge. Apparently now though, we'll have to await the deliberations of the Commission on Taxation.

It is amazing how many people feel that the abolition of domestic rates back in 1977 was the nail in the coffin of independent local government. Its the only tax I know that people feel nostalgic about at the doosteps. As a fellah in the Liberties said to me many years ago, "If you didn't like what they were doing with your money you could go down to City Hall and give the councillors a piece of your mind".

Given that stamp duty on property exaggerates the cyclical nature of the property market, we might be better off abolishing it altogether and replacing it with an annual charge on residential property that reflects its floor area and the number of residents. This could allow people to move more easily to the type of property that best reflects their needs without penalising them for their decision to move. If your job was fifty miles away you could move there, and if children came along you could move again without attracting stamp duty that can hit between six and nine per cent each time you move property. It could cut down on commuting and allow people to live in homes that best reflects their needs at each stage of their lives. Certainly some alternative to the complexities of the current system would be welcome.

Meanwhile Philip Boucher-Hayes's Future Shock programme on the issue of water gave stark insight into how bad planning and a lack of capital funding has led to a run-down water supply system. I missed the original screening, and my Real Player jammed at the thirty minute mark, but I think I got the main thrust of it by the half-way mark. Again financing featured as an important issue. John Gormley has ruled out blanket water charges but I'd certainly feel if people are watering their half acre of lawn or wahing the car every week then they should pay some sort of charge for excessive useage. I'd hate to see a pipeline to the Shannon or Boyne just to ensure someone's 08D is sparkling, but perhaps we should be putting more attention into protecting and increasing the watersheds that we have in the vicinity of Dublin. Curiously enough, perhaps New York could be looked at as a city that has a decent tradition of managing their water resource.

It's not a great time to be talking about local government reform and financing when the purse-strings are tightening, but perhaps at a time of fiscal restraint we should be discussing what we really want our local councils and councillors to be engaged in doing on our behalf.