Strasbourg, 28 March 2013                                                                     CDLR(2013)7

Item B.1 of the agenda

EUROPEAN COMMITTEE ON LOCAL AND REGIONAL DEMOCRACY

(CDLR)

EXCHANGE OF VIEWS ON TOPICAL ISSUES

For debate and action

Secretariat Memorandum

prepared by the

Directorate of Democratic Governance

Democratic Institutions and Governance Department

This document is public. It will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy.

Ce document est public. Il ne sera pas distribué en réunion. Prière de vous munir de cet exemplaire.

Introduction

The Terms of Reference require the CDLR to “exchange information, views and good practice among its members, observers and participants on intergovernmental issues concerning local and regional democracy and crossborder cooperation”.

At its last meeting, three CDLR delegations put forward topics for an exchange of views: Italy gave a summary of the preliminary results of their questionnaire as part of the exchange of views on infrastructural projects, The Netherlands introduced a debate on measures adopted to reduce public expenditure and announced a questionnaire on the topic and Estonia invited members to respond on the questionnaire on local finance.

Two CDLR delegations put forward new topics for an exchange of views: Germany suggested an exchange of views on the vulnerability of adding government information to the internet as part of public consultation in spatial projects and Ireland suggested an exchange of views on the reform of local government.

The Bureau decided in addition to the request of the CDLR to summarize the responses to the Italian questionnaire that, as a general rule, a summary of responses to the questionnaires prepared for exchanges of views will be prepared by the Secretariat.

Infrastructural projects

The CDLR welcomed the debate on the preliminary results and asked the Secretariat to prepare a summary of the responses on the questionnaire. A draft of this summary can be found in Appendix I.

Measures adopted to reduce public expenditure

The CDLR supported the idea of having an exchange of views on the topic and the suggestion to disseminate a questionnaire. A summary of the responses can be found in Appendix II

 

Local finance

The Estonian questionnaire was sent to the CDLR members who were requested to respond also directly to the Estonian delegation. A summary of the responses can be found in Appendix III.

Public consultation

Germany suggested an exchange of views on the vulnerability of adding government information to the internet as part of public consultation in spatial projects at the next CDLR. Germany is experiencing possible difficulties with sharing (technical/strategic) information on the internet as part of the public consultation and the possibility of the abuse of this information for other purposes. The German delegation will make an introduction on the topic which in Germany is connected with the German E-Government-Act, currently under scrutiny of the German parliament. The German delegation drafted a preparatory document which was disseminated by the Secretariat early March and can be found in Appendix IV.

Reform of Local Government in Ireland

Ireland will present its Action Programme for Effective Local Government to the CDLR at its 51^st meeting in April 2013.  The Action Programme seeks to introduce new degrees of accountability, transparency and external scrutiny as essential pillars of local democracy while increasing the participation of women in politics. A short summary of some of the key points in the reform of local government in Ireland can be found in Appendix V.

In order for the discussion to be fruitful and enriching for all delegations, it is suggested to proceed as follows.

1        Delegations that have made the proposal make introductory statements. Written materials, if available, will be circulated to all delegations preferably in advance of the meeting. PowerPoint presentations, or similar, are possible and welcome.

2        CDLR delegations prepare themselves for the discussion, having regard to the issues or questions raised by the proponent delegations, and bring to the meeting relevant information or documentation. If available in time, these materials can be disseminated among delegations.

3        The exchange of views is summarised in the meeting report and possible follow up is decided by the CDLR at the close of the discussion.

4        The chair of the CDLR opens and moderates the discussion.

Action required

CDLR members are invited to prepare for and take part in the exchanges of views on (a) Consultation procedures: Germany – Public information on the internet / Italy – Planning major infrastuctural works; (b) Local government reform: Presentation of Action Programme to overhaul local government structures in Ireland and (c) Financial crisis: Netherlands – Measures adopted to reduce public expenditure.

APPENDIX I

Summary of replies to the questionnaire
on difficulties in decision-making and participation
relating to major public works

In accordance with its terms of reference[1], the CDLR held exchanges of views on topical issues at its two meetings in 2012. Based on national data supplied in response to a questionnaire, the Committee discussed, among other things, decision-making procedures and practices regarding consultation of the public and of local/regional authorities when planning major infrastructure projects having an impact on a given area.

This topic was proposed by the delegation of Italy, prompted by the difficulties experienced by that country in striking a consensus between the two levels of government concerning the location of major infrastructures and the implementation of measures entailing additional costs for local authorities. The lengthy debate on the building of the Turin–Lyon railway line or the Messina bridge (between Calabria and Sicily) and the establishment of safe sites for nuclear waste storage (Scanzano Jonico) or even ordinary landfill sites for municipal waste (Naples) illustrated these difficulties.

 

At its meeting in November 2012, the CDLR decided to pursue discussion on this topic in 2013. The present document is a summary of 14 national replies^[2] (appendix I), structured in four sections along the lines of the questionnaire. Its aim is to draw together the different replies to each question to shed light on the approaches taken by the countries concerned and also to provide further material for the Committee's forthcoming exchanges on questions requiring detailed examination.

 

*   *   *

 

In terms of time, public works to build or maintain civil engineering infrastructures form part of a long-term vision, for the benefit of both present and future generations. In material terms, public works fulfil one or more of the following objectives: 

-    improvement of the living environment through the renovation or development of a         given area,

-     the economic development of an area through the building of new links,

-     greater fluidity of traffic and reduction of pollution through the building of new links,

-     sustainable development through the building of environmental hazard management         plants (sewage, waste processing etc) and renewable energy generating stations. 

Public works projects may be driven by the administration at local, regional, national or even European level or by public or private enterprises. Many projects are initiated by local/regional authorities themselves. As the guarantor of the national interest, the State defines the infrastructure needed by the country for the coming years, in principle involving local and regional authorities in the design of projects that will have an impact on their respective territories.

Before any decision is taken, the projects are brought to the attention of elected representatives and the local community and public utility and environmental impact studies are carried out.  This is the phase in which any individual or body concerned should be able to voice their opinion. In order to succeed, a project must be underpinned by a social and economic consensus - in other words the parties involved must strike the right balance between the utility of the project for as many people as possible and the nuisances and costs it will entail.  

*   *   *

Question 1

The replies show that most of the States responding to the questionnaire have encountered difficulties when designing and/or taking decisions on public works projects. These difficulties can result either from challenges at a political level concerning the necessity, content, implementation, timetable, budget etc, or from the reactions of social or economic partners at national level (ecology organisations, associations of entrepreneurs, archaeology departments etc) or local level (citizens, enterprises, local authorities, civil society) concerning how the project is to be implemented and what economic, social and environmental impact it will have. These challenges and reactions generally translate into public debate, political debate in Parliament or referendums or ultimately court proceedings.  The consequences reported include delays, budget overspends, modifications and sometimes even the abandoning of the project. 

Three member States have encountered difficulties linked to the environmental impact of various construction projects Austria cites the example of the project to build the 27.3 km-long Semmering rail tunnel, which is to run below the Northern Alps range, between Gloggnitz in Lower Austria and Mürzzuschlag in Styria. For 30 years, the tunnel project was hotly contested by ecologists and community groups fearing potential water shortages, damage to the environment and costs spiralling out of control. A new environmentally friendly alternative to tunnel project was devised, with construction beginning in 2012 and set to continue up to 2024. The Czech Republic gave several examples - the project to build a second international airport to the north of Prague, a new radioactive waste storage facility and a dam at Nove Herminovy (Northern Moravia)

- all voted against by the local community in referendums. However, after an environmental impact assessment finding in favour of the projects, the State intends to push on with the public works, compensating communities in the event of expropriation or adverse effects. Luxembourg had to abandon a scheme to establish an industrial waste disposal site following a backlash from the local community. This country is currently facing difficulties over the building of a football stadium and shop outlets on ground at risk of flooding, forcing the government to reconsider the scheme. 

Three countries shared their experience of difficulties in implementing major public works arising from funding issues. The spreading of funding between the State and the municipalities concerned, using needs-costs-benefits analysis, for the installation of a new underground train line between Helsinki and Espoo is one of the challenges currently facing Finland, whose reply states that it is also difficult to reconcile public information and consultation with the political objectives of works projects. In Serbia, despite keen interest in public works on the part of enterprises and the unemployed, funding for these types of projects is patently inadequate, and there is a similar situation in Turkey.

Four other countries – Greece, Ireland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom – said that they have frequently run into difficulties, without providing details, when taking decisions on major public works. In Sweden, satisfactory solutions have sometimes been arrived at through the State and local authorities working together. In Ireland, the development of the road network is based on statistics and well established procedures. Even so, some projects have had to be dropped or revised or have been the subject of legal proceedings.  In the United Kingdom, the adoption of a new package of measures has made it possible to improve the regional planning system and speed up decision-making procedures for major infrastructure projects. The old system was complex and bureaucratic, entailing lengthy delays which hindered economic development: it took seven years, for example, to reach a decision on terminal 5 at Heathrow airport and six years for a decision on the upgrading of the high-voltage line in North Yorkshire.

Of the 13 replies received, only two speak of healthy dialogue on matters of principle between national and local levels and the carrying out of public works without major difficulties. Given the specific nature of Monaco - with its small territory and a single local authority - the authorities manage to coordinate their efforts well.  In Switzerland, despite lengthy and complex approval procedures for public works, there are very few examples of projects that have been stopped or abandoned.  This is down to high standards of construction that respect both the environment and health, as well as a process of democratic participation in decision-making, for every new project phase or modification. When an infrastructure project is validated by a referendum, it is not subsequently challenged unless it undergoes modifications. The most significant example of a project rejected by mass public demonstrations and subsequently abandoned is a scheme to build the Kaiseraugst nuclear power plant. Some projects running over several decades may be put to a further referendum for every new phase or adaptation (eg building of the national road network or the new transalpine rail link – the Lötschberg and Gotthard tunnels).

Question 2

The notion of major public works is approached differently in the legislation of the respondent countries.  Under Luxembourgish law, it means the construction of major communication routes (motorways and link roads) and carrying out of large-scale real estate projects (building business estates, redeveloping areas).  Similarly, in the United Kingdom, major infrastructures are major transport links, water facilities (dams, reservoirs, sewage plants) and hazardous waste disposal sites. In the Czech Republic, the law lists the activities that may be the subject of public works tenders, with the classification of works differing according to the type of activity and cost. In Finland, the scale of public works is defined by thresholds indicating the estimated amounts of public tenders. Ireland and Switzerland emphasise the utility and impact, in the beneficial sense, of establishing infrastructures (linking up areas, providing road mobility for the entire population and resources such as electricity or water). Serbia's legislation does not define the notion of major public works.

The environmental impact study is an administrative procedure systematically carried out in the respondent countries; it has even become compulsory upstream of large-scale developments and civil engineering works above a given financial threshold. This assessment procedure envisages and evaluates the direct, indirect, immediate and long-term environmental effects of the project. Within the framework of that study, the parties involved in the project engage in discussion and negotiation on the ecological and socio-economic considerations, and the pros and cons of the scheme.  Following the study, the project may undergo modifications, have conservation and/or compensation measures attached to it or even be replaced by an alternative solution (Luxembourg mentions industrial waste processing as an alternative to a landfill site). Assessment is sometimes criticised or shows limitations because it requires time, financial resources, information and additional expertise, which delays implementation of projects and creates unforeseen problems (Austria reported such difficulties). When different administrative levels are involved in a major public works project, they all take part in the impact assessment through their competent authority.  This is mentioned in the replies from Austria, Switzerland, the Czech Republic and Greece.

Where the decision-making process is concerned, some countries reported that all interested parties, from all the governmental levels involved, participate in decision-making on a major civil engineering construction. In some countries, the decision is a matter solely for central Government (Serbia, Turkey and the United Kingdom).  In Norway, government proposals are ratified by Parliament.  In other countries, local/regional authorities may act in the capacity either of the decision-making administrative authorities if they themselves are the originators of the project or as authorities affected by a project initiated at central government level (Austria, Czech Republic, Greece, Sweden, Switzerland). The reply from Switzerland is particularly interesting in this respect, with its clear explanation of how the subsidiarity principle is applied in that country and how any major infrastructure project gains the necessary democratic legitimacy (see the information provided for questions 1 and 2).  It emerges that in the event of disagreement between the central and local levels, the necessary arbitration lies within the remit of central government.  In Luxembourg, "any creation, transformation, change of use or demolition of a construction, as well as earthworks, are subject to authorisation by the bourgmestre".  In Monaco, decisions are taken following consultation between the government and the municipality. In Ireland, it is an independent national authority – An Bord Pleanala - which examines, authorises and modifies major infrastructure projects, taking into consideration the national interest, sustainable development and respect for the environment.    

Question 3

Concerning the participation of local communities in the sense indicated in the question, the right to information, as one means of participation by users or residents, appears to be well established in all the respondent countries. Citizens are informed of major public works projects under formal procedures and through various means: posters (usually at the town hall), publication on the web (on the internet site of the ministry or the local authority responsible) or by announcements in the media.  The fact that any individuals so wishing may obtain details on the implementation of the project (of the budget, for example) or express their views may be considered as an extension of that right. 

The established pattern in nearly all the countries is for those managing a project to consult the public.  Public involvement helps, among other things, to foster relations of trust with the authorities.  Members of the public have various opportunities (at the stage of design, impact study or during or after decisions) and various means (proposals, comments, voting in referendums, petitions, complaints) to express their opinions. This is the case in Austria, the Czech Republic, Ireland, Luxembourg, Norway, Slovakia, Switzerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom.

Switzerland stated that citizens are involved in each phase of a project, both at the design stage, so that their needs are taken into consideration, and at the time of the decision on the project or its adaptation when in progress.  In Switzerland, each referendum is preceded by public debate and broad public information through the media.  In Monaco, the Order of architects and the Committee for Monegasque traditions are represented on the Advisory Committee for building. Greece lies somewhere between the rule and the exception in that its legislation makes no express provision for public participation when a project is devised or in the decision-making.  There is a proliferation of court proceedings in the country relating to projects infringing the right of ownership. At the same time, project developers organise exchanges with citizens and, for their part, the citizens mobilise their efforts and organise discussion with local authorities.  Finland reported difficulties in organising public information efficiently and expressed its desire to make improvements in that area. Serbia pointed out that associations of citizens may also reply to calls for tender and become public works contractors.

Question 4

The interest of this question lies in ascertaining how States react and interact in the event of a dispute over a facility or the building of a major infrastructure on a European scale. This issue is particularly topical at a time when decisions are to be taken on the future of the new railway line passing under the Alps (Lyon-Turin) intended to aid regional, national and European exchanges.

Some States did not reply to the question from this viewpoint, focusing instead on interaction between the State and local/regional authorities. As already pointed out, with regard to question 2, in internal disputes, in principle, it is the State which takes the final decision. However, the central authorities are not unsympathetic to the arguments of local/regional authorities or citizens and seek a solution that best caters for the interests at stake. If this is not possible, there is the option of lodging an appeal before a court, which will then rule in favour of one of the parties.   

As regards European Union member states, in theory, supranational (European) legislation should be incorporated in national legislation. As Austria, points out, in accordance with the principle of the primacy of European Union law, supranational interests should normally win out over local interests. Finland and Sweden share the good practice of identifying interests and objectives held in common with the neighbouring country when devising projects stemming from a national initiative but reaching beyond national borders.

For the countries that are not members of the European Union, the information obtained allows us to conclude that in Norway the ultimate decision lies with Parliament, while in Switzerland supranational interests are taken into account in the decision-making process and the country concludes bilateral agreements with neighbouring countries on the development of any infrastructure of national interest that might extend beyond national territory. For example, Switzerland has contributed funding to the restoration of the Bourg-en-Bresse-Geneva railway line in France, which significantly cuts journey times between Paris and western Switzerland.  Similarly, Switzerland has participated in the funding of the TGV Rhine-Rhône high-speed rail link. Looking ahead, the country will also contribute funding to the improvement of the Bregenz–Munich line in Germany and to other projects in progress concerning the Alps on Italian territory.

 

APPENDIX II

Measures adopted to reduce public expenditure

At the 50^th meeting of the CDLR, the Dutch delegation proposed an exchange of views on the effect of the financial crisis on local and regional government in member states. The crisis has its effect on local and regional government in many ways, for instance by forcing governments, as  was the case in the Netherlands, to take  measures to manage and control the budgetary processes, for instance by enabling central government to enlarge its control on local and regional expenditures in order to reduce and manage the overall deficit, especially in the light of the Eurozone criteria. The Dutch delegation noticed that several countries are forced to reduce the public expenditure and that the members of the Eurozone even committed themselves to agree on a strict time schedule in the coming years to mitigate the deficit and to work towards a balanced budget and a maximum level of overall debt of max 60%.

In the light of the foregone, the Dutch delegation submitted the following questionnaire to which 14 countries replied in writing[3]. What follows is a summary of the replies.

Question 1. How is the budgetary policy organised in your country. Please specify the (budgetary) relation between the national, regional and local governments.

The replies show that the responding countries have a legal framework which prescribes the budgetary relations between national, regional and local governments. The provisions are sometimes written down in the constitution, but in most cases part of a local or regional government act. The scope of the legal provisions shows a clear difference between unitarian and federalist states. In the unitarian states the national legal provisions cover the relations between all tiers of governments, while in federalist states the national provisions mainly are limited to the regional level.

Question 2.Are the expenditures of local and regional governments in any way managed or monitored by the national government?

In general there is a distinction visible between the unitarian and federalist states concerning monitoring expenditures of local and regional governments. In the federal states regional and local government have more financial autonomy and the monitoring of the local level is morly left to the responsibility of the regional governments.

However, in most member states the management of local finance is clearly under reform. Due to the financial crisis national governments are tending to increase their influence on local expenditure and indebtedness. The measures differ from agreements on increased monitoring to legal provisions written down in law to manage the  expenditure and indebtedness of local and regional government. This increase of influence of the national level is most noticeable in member states also belonging to the Eurozone, who are are enforced to bring the indebtedness in line with the EU standards.    

Question 3.Are the accounting systems of the national, regional and local level equal, or are the different levels of governments free to choose their own system?

The responses received by the Secretariat show that Member States use different accounting systems. Within the Member States some governments prescribe the use of one system, in other cases different systems are used by local and regional government. However, the responses show that there is a general tendency to switch to the accrual system on local level. 

Question 4.Did the economic crisis led to specific policy initiatives to increase the control of the expenditures of local and regional governments?

Although the responses show that some Member States are less affected by the crisis, for most Member States the financial crisis has clearly led to policy initiatives to increase the control of the expenditures of local and regional governments.

In general the new policies didn´t led to changes in the division of tasks and responsibilities, however in some of the responding countries the increase of control  was part of a larger reform program which included the changes of tasks en responsibilities between tiers of government.

Local and regional government were in most cases involved in the policy making process concerning these changes. The settings for consultation are different in de responding member states. Where some countries have clear legal obligations to consult local and regional government other used more ad-hoc settings like public hearings, thematic discussions or more individual consultations.

Question 5.Did the economic crisis led to specific policy initiatives to reduce the expenditures of local and regional governments?

In line with the actions taken to increase the control on expenditures and indebtedness several Member States, especially those of the Eurozone, took actions to set criteria for the expenditures and indebtedness for local and regional government. Federalist states also mention an increased (voluntary) cooperation between local and federal level.

 

Question 6.Does the national government take/ offer specific measures to support regional and local governments who are severely affected by the economic crisis?

The responses show a broad range of actions. Firstly in most countries the newly introduced legal provisions to manage the expenditure and indebtedness require that local and regional authorities reshape their budgets and (investments) plans for the future. Member States even expressed their worries that the strict implementations of especially the EU regulations could prevent local authorities of any investment in the future.

In some countries the measures resulted also in financial support to local authorities in order to strengthen their position. 

APPENDIX III

Local finance policies

At its meeting of 2-3 April 2012, the CDLR held a debate on local finance policies in times of crisis focusing in particular on the sources of revenues, local taxes and borrowing by local authorities. The subject was introduced by the Estonian delegation. The questions raised appear hereunder, with a summary of the 20 replies provided in writing[4].  

Is there a clear division of responsibilities between different levels of the administration (between central government and local authorities)? Are all local government tasksclearly defined in the local government Act or other relevant legislation? Are there mixed competencies between central and local authorities and, if so, how are theresponsibilities divided in these cases?

In the responding countries one can find a clear division of responsibilities between the different tiers of government. The division is made in the constitution or in a local government act and often specified in sector law. Mixed competences do occur but mainly between local and regional level and according to responses especially in policy fields with regional aspects.  

Do LGs also fulfil tasks on behalf of central government? If yes, then how are these differentiated from the local tasks (e.g. contract, transfer from state budget which differs from regular LG transfer for LG tasks etc.)

In most cases local governments have exclusive tasks and fulfill no tasks of on behalf of the central government. The response show that situations of mutual tasks mainly occur in the federalist states. However, no clear examples were given of mutual tasks between central and local level. In the responses received by the Secretariat one can find only examples of mutual tasks between central and regional government or regional and local government.

Do mechanisms or procedures exist in order to provide a forum at which central government and local authority representatives can discuss these issues and agree (with binding or not binding effect) on the size, type, rates etc. of resources allocated to local authorities? What is the object of these negotiations/ agreements (local government revenue base, taxes, equalization fund, specific grants etc).

The responses show a broad pallet of consultation procedures. In most responding countries there is a legal obligation to consult local government on proposals affecting their local finances.

 

What proportion do subsidies take up in LG budgets?? What is the proportion of state subsidy which is earmarked?  How much flexibility do LG-s have within the earmarked grant/ subsidy? Which services are these subsidies tied to? Are the subsidies central government support for local tasks or are they specifically intended for tasks implemented at the local level that fall under central government / state competencies??

Subsidies and national grants are in most cases a small part of the local governments budgets. In most cases local taxes and fees are providing the most substantial contribution to the local budget. In those responding countries with minimal local taxation the national grants and subsidies are providing a larger contribution to the local budget. Although one could identify an ambition to have more general grants and subsidies, subsidies and grants are in most cases linked to special policy areas, often specified in sectorial law.

In your country, how are state tasks and local authority tasks defined and differentiated: in the constitution; in general terms by the law on local self-government; specifically, for each area devolved to local authorities, in sectoral laws covering e.g. social services and benefits, waste management, primary education, health care, leisure and culture, roads and public transport.

The responses show that mentioned tasks in most cases are defined in sectoral law.

APPENDIX IV

PUBLICATION OF GOVERNMENT INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET^*

At the last CDLR meeting the discussion focused on the question of how to reach a consensus on implementing major infrastructure projects. Transparency and citizen participation play an important role in this context and can be supported by the publication of government information on the Internet. In the course of the legislative process of the E-Government Act in Germany the risks related to the publication of government information online have also been discussed.

1.         E-Government Act

E-government means dealing with business processes in a government or administrative context via electronic media using information and communications technologies. Given the broad dissemination of electronic communications for both private and business purposes, citizens and businesses expect the administration to offer administrative services also electronically. The use of e-government services, however, is governed by legal framework conditions. This means in particular that many administrative procedures require applications to be made in writing, that supporting documents are submitted in the original paper version and that files are kept in paper form.

The E-Government Act, which is currently in the legislative process, aims at facilitating electronic communication with the administration at all federal levels by reducing legal obstacles and at providing an impetus to modernizing administrative procedures. Ideally, administrative procedures will be fully electronic in future without any media inconsistencies from the application via processing in the authority up to the dispatch of the authority’s decision to the citizen or the company concerned.

2.         Online publications

2.1     Documents to plan major investments

As part of the E-Government Act a provision has been proposed which requires public or local notifications to be published also online. This includes the publication of documents, such as plans for investment projects. So far, the often comprehensive documentation of such projects has been made available in the municipal administration’s office rooms for a limited period of time so that citizens can examine the documents. Sometimes these documents are also published online, but only on a voluntary basis. With the proposed regulation this will be done for all procedures in future.

^* Document prepared by the German Delegation.

Businesses have expressed the fear that the Internet publication may make it easier to uncover business and trade secrets and may foster industrial espionage. An Internet publication would make documents available worldwide without any time limit and would no longer restrict the number of persons having access to these documents. For this reason businesses have called for a regulation ensuring that documents are published only with the consent of the business concerned (e.g. the applicant and future operator of a plant). The reservations expressed by industry have been taken into account by including this proposal as a directory provision in the law. This means that under certain circumstances it is possible to deviate from the statutory regulation to comply with special secrecy requirements. During the entire legislative process on the E-Government Act this regulation has been heavily debated. The Parliament’s decision is still pending. In this decision, business interests must be weighed up against information interests and the public’s interest in greater transparency.

2.2     Online publication of meeting documents and online broadcasting of meetings

Furthermore there is a lively discussion in German federal states and municipalities on improving the transparency of activities pursued by elected local bodies. This includes the question as to the publication of meeting documents and the admissibility of broadcasting meetings online. The discussion focuses on whether the consent of those concerned is required for online broadcasting. The German federal states currently have differing provisions on this matter.

3.        Questions for discussion

Against this background the following questions should be considered:

·         Are online publications making administrative action transparent an appropriate means to improve citizen participation and settle conflicts, e.g. about major infrastructure projects?

·          How does your Member State protect business secrets or the personal rights of individuals when government and administrative information is published online? Is there any discussion on this matter? What are the private interests involved?

·         How does your Member State balance the public’s information interests with conflicting private interests when publishing government and administrative information online?

 
APPENDIX V

Action Programme for Effective Local Government in Ireland

The Action Programme is built around the following vision:

Local government will be the main vehicle of governance and public service at local level - leading economic, social and community development, delivering efficient and good value services, and representing citizens and local communities effectively and accountably

The reform programme is designed to achieve its objectives through a comprehensive and coherent set of measures to improve the main elements of local government (its structures, functions, resources, operational arrangements and governance) and is guided by relevant principles including various Council of Europe recommendations.

The role of local government in Ireland is narrow by international comparison.  To make the most of its resources and capacities, the role of local government will be strengthened, having regard to relevant criteria, with a wider range of suitable functions.

In the short term, the functions of local government are being strengthened in the following areas in particular:

·                an enhanced and clearer role in economic development and enterprise support;

·                close involvement in community and local development;

·                devolution of specific functions from central level and delegation of greater authority or relaxation of specific central controls on local authorities; and

·                widening the reach of local government by using its capacity to undertake functions with or on behalf of other sectors and performing a broad co-ordination and leadership role locally.

There will be a stronger role for local government in promoting economic development, thereby sustaining and creating jobs. The economic development role will be supported by a dedicated Strategic Policy Committee (SPC) in each local authority and in many cases, a specific Director of Services for Economic Development.

Local government will have a central role in the oversight and planning of local and community development programmes.  Arrangements to be implemented include:

·                a Socio-Economic Committee in each city/county council for planning and oversight of local and community development programmes;

·                an inter-departmental group to secure a ‘whole-of-government approach’;

·                a national policy to establish a framework for a cross-government approach to local and community development at local level, and a common approach to budgets, costs and targeting of resources;

·                a 5-year City/County Local and Community Plan forming a component of the overall City/County Development Plan;

·                alignment of the areas of the local and community development programme with city/county boundaries as far as possible;

A programme of devolution of specific functions and delegation of greater responsibility to local authorities will be implemented. This will involve:

·                delegation of greater responsibility for certain functions such as environment, water, foreshore, local/community development, food safety, roads/traffic, housing and energy efficiency;

·                assignment of certain functions from Government Departments/agencies to local authorities in the areas such as transport, tourism, sport, management of State property and heritage sites, flood management/relief, and certain infrastructural functions.

There will be a fundamental reorganisation of local governance structures and, in keeping with public service reform generally, local government structures at sub-county, county and regional levels, will be streamlined and strengthened.

·                There will be a rationalised organisation integrating town and county governance with a reduction of some 500 councillors involving the replacement of 114 local authorities with 31 integrated authorities organised on the basis of municipal districts within counties.

·                Councillors will be elected simultaneously to both municipal district and county council, with members in common instead of the current separate town and county membership whereby municipal towns have double representation.

·                The total number of seats nationally will not exceed 950, compared with 883 county and city council and 744 town council seats currently.

·                A key objective of local government unification is to increase the capacity of local government to promote economic and social development. The merging authorities can act as leaders in the development of the enhanced local authority role in economic development.

·                Regional structures and functions will be revised and strengthened with replacement of the eight regional authorities and two assemblies by three new regional assemblies to perform an updated range of strategic functions.

·                The main functions of the new Regional Assemblies will include formulation of Regional Spatial and Economic Strategies, other strategic functions under relevant legislation, relevant functions in relation to EU funding programmes, and oversight of local authority performance and national policy implementation.

A rigorous programme of efficiency measures, organisational streamlining and robust performance evaluation is being implemented to ensure that local government is organised and operates as efficiently as possible, achieves the highest standards of performance and provides the best possible quality of service and responsiveness to customers, citizens and taxpayers.

A Workforce Planning process is in progress to determine optimum local authority organisational and staffing requirements, and rigorous staffing and organisational rationalisation will continue in the context of the reform programme.

Service Level Agreements will be developed between Government Departments and local authorities. A more robust system of Performance Standards and Monitoring will be introduced in local government, with focus on key indicators and on outcomes rather than outputs, emphasis on value for money, and comparative performance of authorities.

The Government is committed to the introduction of a local property tax with provision for an appropriate element of local authority financial responsibility to underpin local democratic decision-making

To meet requirements of good governance, strong leadership and democratic accountability, a range of reforms are being implemented including:

·                The structure, role, membership and operational mechanisms of local authority SPCs and Corporate Policy Groups (CPG) will be reviewed and strengthened.

·                A special forum or colloquium of the elected members of the four Dublin local authorities will be convened to consider the options for the introduction of a directly elected Mayor for a Dublin metropolitan area, which will be put for decision through a plebiscite in 2014.

·                A new National Oversight and Audit Commission for Local Government will be established to provide an independent high quality scrutiny of local government performance in fulfilling national, regional and local mandates.

·                Measures will be implemented to strengthen further accountability and audit in local government

·                The position of local authority manager will be replaced by a Chief Executive post, consideration will be given to strengthening the statutory position of the elected council in that context, and the reserved functions of elected members will be strengthened.

·                The local government ethics code will be strengthened and incorporated in a single national legislative framework across the public sector;

·                Mechanisms to promote greater community/citizen engagement with local government will be considered, including possible participative democracy arrangements.

A central element of implementing the Action Programme will be a major programme of legislation to provide for the wide range of measures under the programme in time for the 2014 local elections.

It is also envisaged that the measures to be implemented under the Action Programme will provide the platform for further development of the local government system and broadening of its role as part of the ongoing reform of the overall system of public administration in Ireland.