B.Sc. (Honours) in Spatial Planning

DT106/4 Essay Paper: National and Regional Planning

Regional Government Reform in Ireland 2014; New Boundaries but Old Flaws?

By Ruadhán MacEoin, C11754525Gary Desmond, C11723171

& Tomás Glancy, C11424518

ABSTRACT

Major changes have occurred to the division of Irish regional boundaries in January 2015 without either much media scrutiny, or public debate. This essay sets out how Irish regional government came in to being, how the new changes have far reaching consequences, and by reference to other commentators, evaluates the reforms – including the rationale as to the new boundaries and spatial configuration. By way of comparison, the latter parts assess alternatives – both elsewhere in Germany and Scotland, as well as a few theoretical models that have been suggested by others.

The paper was originally written as separate undergraduate final year essays by the three writers for lecturer David O’Connor of the School of Spatial Planning, the Dublin Institute of Technology – with those papers subsequently combined so as to produce this document.

Key words: Regional Government, Putting People First, Local Government Reform, New Regional Boundaries,

1 | P a g e

DUBLIN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

INTRODUCTION

This essay gives an overview of recent evolution of Irish regional governance, and provides an evaluation of new regional spatial and governance structures in the local government reforms commenced in 2012.

The paper discusses the rationale for the reforms, and offers some different viewpoints expressed by commentators about the new structures, with regard to advantages and disadvantages.

Other alternative governance models are discussed in the latter part of the essay, with some consideration provided. These include concepts influenced by planner Conor Skehan with economist Dr. Lorcan Sirr; by Kevin Byrne of NowOrSoon.Com – and also models influenced by the German governance model, and lastly the Scottish concept of City Regions and City Networks.

BACKGROUND – HOW IRISH REGIONAL GOVERNANCE CAME INTO BEING

As initiated by the Local Government Act of 1991, in 1994 the establishment of the first statutory eight Regional Authorities came into effect in the Republic of Ireland (See fig.1) (IRO, 2014).

(Fig 1, Illustrating the original eight Regional Authorities in Ireland 1994.) (Source: IRO.ie)

2 | P a g e

The eight regional authorities were given two main functions under the Local Government Act, with these being:

1) “To promote the co-ordination of public services provision”. 2) To monitor the delivery of EU Structural Fund assistance in the region” (IRO, 2014).

However, subsequently, significant responsibilities were assigned to the regional authorities, that they oversee coordination of Regional Planning Guidelines (RPG’s), and also that the objectives of the National Spatial Strategy (NSS) be adhered to (PPF, 2012) – although the NSS has itself since been abandoned.

July 1999 saw the introduction of the two Regional Assemblies (See fig 2), which were designated to two separate regions – the Border, Midlands and Western Region (BMW), and the Southern and Eastern Region (S&E). The assemblies were designated as NUTS II level Regions for EU Structural Funding purposes (IRO, 2014). However, some commentators suggested a primary purpose of the regional governance provisions was to maximise Objective 1 funding for the BMW area, as the assemblies were given no resources, authority or technical support (VanEgeraat & Foley, 2012). Nonetheless, the purported function of these institutions was to manage the EU structural funds for the regions (IRO, 2014).

(Fig 2, illustrating the NUTS II Regional Assemblies) (Source: IRO.ie)

3 | P a g e

2014 REFORMS - NEW BOUNDARIES

In October 2012 the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government released Putting People First, Action Programme for Effective Local Government. The reforms purport to be progressive on a number of fronts – including streamlining so as to make local government more efficient, and separately that local government is more democratically accountable. However, changes heralded at a regional level by ‘Putting People First’ were arguably equally as significant – despite the remarkable absence of comment in the media. In essence a complete reconfiguration of the eight regional authorities and two regional assemblies is underway – with these being replaced by three Regional Assemblies; those being Eastern & Midlands, Southern, and Northern & Western (See fig 3) (PPF, 2012).

(Fig 3, illustrating the original two Regional Assemblies & the new three Regional Assemblies in Ireland)(Sourced: http://irelandafternama.wordpress.com/)

Ostensibly, the new arrangement for regional governance appears more logical than the predecessor; three regions will have three corresponding assemblies, with the regions partly corresponding to the ancient provincial division of Ireland; Eastern and Midland (Leinster), Southern (Munster) and Connaught-Ulster (being only part of Ulster, as presently Northern Ireland is outside sovereign domain). This arrangement appears more efficient, not least because the number of authorities have been reduced, as well as boundaries of authority and assembly areas directly corresponding; furthermore, the state is divided into 3 territories of comparable size.

However, aside from these attributes, questions have been raised as to what other advantages are presented. As put by Chris van Egeraat (2013) of Department of

4 | P a g e

Geography and National Institute for Regional and Spatial Analysis, NUI Maynooth and Director, Public Policy Advisors Network Seán O’Riordáin (2013); ‘the proposal document makes no reference to the logic behind this new division’.

Separately, according to President of the Irish Planning Institute, Mary Hughes (2014), the reforms ‘risk being ineffective without the context of a new National Spatial Strategy (NSS) to guide regional development’; moreover ‘there is concern that the structure and make-up of the regional assemblies may have been decided in the absence of a national spatial plan or structure and without any sound, evidence-based assessment’.

It has previously been argued that Ireland’s now defunct National Spatial Strategy was fatally subverted by being launched only after the commencement of the National Development Plan – as opposed to ahead, so it could have aided guiding how and where physical development of necessary infrastructure should have happened. Hence, it appears a comparable mistake may be repeated – of cart-before-horse.

EXPERIENCE ELSEWHERE: SCOTLAND & GERMANY

Systems for planning and local governance tend to somewhat reflect different nations characteristics and priorities, and it appears there is no one-size-fits-all in terms of a universally agreed optimum formula.

Hence Germany has strong regional government, influenced in part by the post-war desire to prevent it from ever again being too centrally dominated. Conversely, France has centralised authority based in Paris which takes more direct role in guiding the Departments; this arrangement is again a legacy in part from Revolutionary France (1790) to ensure effective governance and prevent revolts (Hopkins, 1994). Notably both of those countries have very large populations, which also justifies having a strong regional dimension. With Ireland, the local governance system was largely inherited from British rule, with tweaking conducted subsequently (Irishstatutebook.ie).

Yet a key question emerges; aside from reduction of the amount of Irish regional authorities, and vertical integration of the same so as to correspond to the assemblies, on what grounds have the new spatial designations been made?

For comparison, with the German model, it is a federal structure divided into two levels; there is the central government (Bund) – and secondly; the sixteen constitutive states, known as Lander or Bundeslander (See fig 4). This system functions very much differently to that proposed for the new Irish regional assemblies (Pahl-Weber & Henckel, 2008).

5 | P a g e

A critical difference is that the Basic Law system in Germany allows for state authorities to exercise the law of their own constitutions – with exceptions only made if a decision is needed that is of national importance. Another distinct difference with the Irish model is that representatives at all tiers of government, from federal down to municipal council, are directly elected by the citizens. Moreover, the German model has as a key feature the preparation and coordination of plans at regional level (Pahl-Weber & Henckel 2008) – and perhaps the Regional Assemblies in Ireland may be likewise similarly tasked in the future.

A number of positive and negative points have been noted regarding the spatial designation of the new Irish regional assemblies. For example, Hughes (2014) argues there is a substantial risk of the reform being ineffective as no national framework to guide regional development currently exists; moreover, in the absence of a National Spatial Strategy (NSS), an evidence-based approach could be lost – and that ad-hoc approaches may be detrimental to the long term success of the regions. Separately it has also been asserted there is a need to facilitate a strong urban economy in order for the national economy – and regions – to prosper (Hughes, 2014).

6 | P a g e

(Fig 4, above left: The 16 states that make up the Federal German Republic. Above right: An enlightenment era proposal to divide France into regions on the basis of proportionate geometry; the proposal was considered by the National Assembly in 1789 but not adopted) (Sourced: ViewsoftheWorld.com and Wikipedia respectively)

However, such matters are arguably not addressed by the new approach, and perhaps there is even retrogression; the regional authority that was previously specific to Dublin has been removed – with Dublin’s interests instead being subsumed into a larger Eastern Midlands Region, effectively lobbing downtown Liffey side and rural Longford’s interests all in together as one. It can only be speculated as to why the east region is taking the form as proposed, as unfortunately ‘Putting People First’ makes no reference as to the logic behind the defining of these new regions. Some commentators have asserted the spatial designation of the new regional assemblies appears to be a retrograde approach to bottom-up regional development, with Van Egeraat & Foley (2012) also writing that the new boundaries should have been grounded on evidence-based logic, rather than in a seemingly ad-hoc manner.

DANGER OF NEW REGIONAL ARRANGEMENT

Yet not only have significant questions been raised regarding the boundaries, but also the actual composition of the regional assemblies – with a major question as to whether representation is democratically proportionate.

The issue of proportionate representation has long dogged Irish local government. Writing in August 2013, former Dublin Lord Mayor, City Councillor Andrew Montague, noted that a ‘major problem with the proposed Eastern/Midlands Assembly is that the twelve councils will each nominate two councillors to the assembly. This means that the 500,000 people living in Dublin City Council area will have two representatives in the assembly, while the 50,000 residents of Longford will also have two representatives’ (Montague, 2013).

Such weighting poses seeming dangers of an inherently anti-urban bias being built into an authority, that arguably could have been better designed so as to either deal with the rural areas and some of Dublin’s hinterland – or else just rural areas only, leaving Dublin to have either its own specific authority to deal with Dublin matters only. Alternatively it may also have been worth separating the east region, so as to constitute Dublin and its immediately adjacent commuting counties into another separate region.

However, by the time the Act enabling the new regional administrations was signed into law in December 2014, some arrangements had been revised to allow for 35 councillors to attend the eastern assembly – with 16 from Dublin County (Goodbody, 2010). Nonetheless, it could be argued two problems remain; Dublin’ interests may remain a minority – while separately, totally rural and completely urban issues are to be dealt with by the same forum.

Yet, in contrast, VanEgeraat and Foley (2012) believe the new Eastern and Midlands region to have positive virtues. Aside from assembling the Greater Dublin Area (GDA) with its commuting belt, the inclusion of County Louth should serve to improve the connection between Dublin and Belfast. Another benefit, according to VanEgeraat and Foley (2012), is that the regional assemblies will have increased responsibility as local and national agencies are no longer able to ignore regional strategies; however, this will only be achievable provided adequate resources are made available.

7 | P a g e

Optimum design of the new structures should also consider economy of scale as important; for example, as noted by An Taisce (2012) ‘Review of State of the Nation’, ‘Smaller councils generally cannot justify the necessary staff to carry out complex functions, including planners, architects, conservation specialists, ecology experts, hydrology engineers, and senior personnel with a good knowledge of European and Irish law... It is imperative that we move to a regional governance structure for planning and development with each region having a minimum population of 200,000’.

In establishing good architecture of governance, it seems logical it should be accountable and purposeful. In 1991, in an addendum to the Barrington Report on Irish Local Government, Dr. Donal Buitlear (1991) advocated that the Chief Executive of regional authorities could be directly elected – as too, the members. Such a democratic approach could be incorporated into the Regional assemblies – and notably the Mahon Report on irregular payments also recommended this (The Final Report of The Tribunal of Inquiry In to Certain Planning Matters and Payments, 2012). However, this is not occurring, and assembly members will continue to be elected only by councillors – and not by citizens.

ALTERNATIVE MODELS

One model proposed by Kevin Byrne of the civic lobby group NowOrSoon.Com would divide the state effectively into 3 provinces – with Dublin County being accorded its own separate region. However, apart from the Dublin element, this is quite akin to what is happening. Interestingly, the idea of dividing Ireland along such lines isn’t new – having been proposed in 1972 as the basis for a federal Ireland by Sinn Féin in their policy document, Éire Nua (Byrne, 2014). However, there seems limited value to return to such an ancient division of the country.

In contrast, Conor Skehan and Dr. Lorcan Sirr (2008) set out an alternative vision for spatial management, published in the Irish Times. They noted the NSS as failing – with all the ‘gateway’ towns shrinking, while undesignated settlements were growing. They wrote that by 2030, ‘about two-thirds of the population will be living within 35kms of the entire east coast, and no plan for "balanced regional development" is going to prevent that’. They also asserted that the demise of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), combined with increased protective environmental designations, is likely to lead to bigger intensive farms on the good land on the country’s eastern side – and a steep demise of farming on the less profitable and frequently more environmentally sensitive land on the western half. Hence, it was proposed the island should be divided into three areas; the Atlantic Territories, the Midlands, and the Eastern Region.

Noting that the NSS aimed for ‘balanced regional development’, Skehan and Sirr (2008) asserted that simply because investment is prevented from going into Dublin, it does not make other areas earmarked for growth more attractive – with everybody losing. Instead, it was argued that each of the new three areas would be able to play to its potential strengths – with the west being a ‘Switzerland of the Atlantic’

8 | P a g e

comprising of tourism, boutique farming, and some specialist enterprises; the midlands would act largely as a logistical area, and the Belfast – Dublin – Waterford – Cork area would be the country’s main economic driver.

This plan appears to have much merit as it endeavours to encourage the strengths of different areas – precisely because the different characteristics are acknowledged. As such this could provide a logical basis for a new spatial strategy – and by extension new regional administration.

However, it is arguable that two amendments could further improve the plan. Firstly, it was envisaged there would be seventeen regional authorities throughout the three areas; yet there seems limited benefit in having as many – and it seems reasonable that there is need for four authorities in four corresponding areas. Secondly, some very rural areas would be accorded into the same area as Dublin – yet as already outlined, it seems logical Dublin may be better served by having its own region, and

9 | P a g e

(Fig 5, left: Ireland could be divided into 3 regions, and a specific Dublin Region – as delineated by the red line) (Sourced: TheIrishTimes.Com)

it would seem reasonable that the three adjacent commuting counties could be considered for inclusion.

Separately, as an entirely different model, Scotland is another EU country of similar size and population to Ireland. Through their Third National Planning Framework (NPF3), which is the spatial expression of the Government’s Economic Strategy, a strong emphasis is placed on the importance of their economic drivers – such as Edinburgh and Glasgow, and that further development of infrastructure should consolidate rural communities with the cities (NPF3, 2014). NPF3 (2014) outlines how investment during the life of the plan should be primarily focused on the city regions and adjacent towns, which perform an important role regarding the cities – being key hinterlands where many people live and work (NPF3, 2014).

(Fig 6, Illustrating the proposed new regional arrangement above left, and a proposed regional arrangement that would perhaps function more effectively above right) (Sourced: http//irelandafternama.wordpress.com/)

The illustration in figure 5 shows how a Scottish approach could be mirrored in Ireland, with Dublin and the Greater Dublin Area being the city region, complimented by the surrounding counties playing a supporting role. This arrangement would not only create a city region – but could also provide a balanced regional arrangement, with population amounts in each not being too dissimilar. Another benefit would be that Co Louth would be assigned with Dublin, and this could assist linkage between Belfast and Dublin, akin to the city network of Edinburgh and Glasgow. Connection between Belfast and Dublin could be enhanced by investment into high speed rail – akin to that already in operation between Edinburgh and Glasgow (NPF3, 2014) – with future development of the corridor so as to link with Waterford and Cork.

The link between Dublin and Belfast may yet play an important role in linking Dublin with the rest of Europe, as the Scottish Government are pushing for the northeast of Scotland to be included in the Trans-European Network (TEN-T), which could over time be extended to the western side of Scotland – and hence to Ireland. As part of

10 | P a g e

the Territorial Co-operation Objective, western Scotland is already eligible for cross-border cooperation funding from the EU (NPF2, 2009) – and such factors appear to indicate the general future direction of EU cities integrating as a network of cities.

However, it is a viewpoint that in order for Irish regional governance to work best, there should be an increase in the autonomy and powers of the regional assemblies – rather than the relatively few non-statutory functions with which they are currently tasked. As outlined earlier, the German model is one example of a level of autonomy that seemingly works well for their regional organisation. Notably, both the German and Scottish regional organisations are tasked with the function of preparing plans for each of their regions – as well as preparing corresponding strategies. Yet, in contrast, the new regional assemblies in Ireland do not have a statutory regard to the new national economic strategy – yet arguably if there was better correlation by way of coordination at the regional level, it could prevent gaps emerging between national framework and county level development plans.

CONCLUSION

Throughout this discussion, it has become increasingly apparent that it would be logical and reasonable to have representatives directly elected – rather than selected. Ideally, the amount of elected representatives should be proportionately reflective of the population numbers that they are representing – as this would help instil confidence in the public and help prevent disparity in terms of representation within the regions.

The theme of regions playing to specific strengths also features throughout discourse – as too does the notion of economies of scale, with the opportunity identified of improving efficiencies by pooling resources, as opposed to duplication at certain levels.

The historic model of four provinces is a natural option that lends itself to consideration – not least as the new regional boundary configurations are not hugely dissimilar. 

However, other than legacy division, there seems relatively little to commend such spatial divisions, as these have a selection of different geographically areas in each region, with these having different requirements. Systemically this means that administrations are more prone to requiring certain duplications at management levels.

Despite Dublin and rural areas such as Longford being incorporated as one region, one advantage is that Dublin and its adjacent commuting counties are to be managed as one entity – with Co. Louth and the Belfast corridor also included.

Overall, progress in the form of efficiency appears to be a feature of the new arrangements – yet given outstanding issues, further future reforms may yet occur.

REFERENCES

11 | P a g e

Anon, (2015). [online] Available at: http://www.antaisce.org/sites/antaisce.org/files/an_taisce_2012_state_of_the_nation.pdf [Accessed 15 Jan. 2015].

Buitleir, Dr. Donal. Local Government Reorganisation and Reform. Dublin: The Stationery Office, 1991. [Online] Available at: http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/LocalGovernment/Administration/FileDownLoad,29619,en.pdf. [Accessed 17 Jan. 2015].

Byrne, K. (2014). Power to the people: Regional government | Now or Soon. [online] Now or Soon. Available at: http://noworsoon.com/456 [Accessed 14 Jan. 2015].

Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, (2012). Putting People First: Action Programme for Effective Local Government. Dublin: The Stationery Office to be Purchased Directly from the Government Publications Sale Office. [online] Available at: http://www.environ.ie/en/PublicationsDocuments/FileDownLoad,31309,en.pdf . [Accessed 5 December 2014].

Goodbody, A. (2010). Insights. [Online] algoodbody.com. Available at: http://www.algoodbody.com/knowledge.jsp?i=1341 [Accessed 21 Dec. 2014].

Hopkins, John. Regional Government in European Countries. Sheffield: University College London, 1994. [Online] Available at: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/spp/publications/unit-publications/5.pdf. [Accessed 9 Jan. 2015].

Hughes, M. (2014). Strategy will need space to breathe. [online] Irish Examiner. Available at: http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/strategy-will-need-space-to-breathe-274909.html [Accessed 17 Dec. 2014].

Irish Regions Office, The (2014) Regions of Ireland: Regional Authorities. Available at: http://www.iro.ie/regional_authorities.html [Accessed 11 December 2014]. ITC: (IRO 2014).

Irishstatutebook.ie. 'Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898'. N.p., 2015. [Online] Available at: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1898/act/37/enacted/en/print. [Accessed 13 Jan. 2015].

Montague, Andrew (2013) ‘Regional assembly’, August 2nd, Eolas Magazine. [Online] Available at: http://www.eolasmagazine.ie/regional-assembly/ [Accessed 7 January 2015].

Pahl-Weber, E. and Henckel, D. (2008). The Planning System and Planning Terms in Germany, a Glossary. [online] Available at: http://shop.arl-net.de/media/direct/pdf/ssd_7.pdf [Accessed 22 Dec. 2014].

12 | P a g e

Scottish Government by APS Group, (2014). Ambition l Opportunity l Place, Scotland’s Third National Planning. Scotland: Scottish Government. [online] Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00453683.pdf [Accessed 3 January 2015].

Scottish Government, (2009). National Planning Framework for Scotland two. Scotland: Scottish Government. [online] Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/278232/0083591.pdf [Accessed 10 January 2015].

The Final Report of The Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments. Dublin: N.p., 2012. [Online] Available at http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/committees/archivedcommittees/cnranda/The-Final-Report-Mahon.pdf. [Accessed 14 Jan. 2015].

The Irish Times, (2008). Proactive planning will make most of regional differences. [online] Available at: http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/proactive-planning-will-make-most-of-regional-differences-1.908713 [Accessed 9 Jan. 2015].

VanEgeraat, C. and Foley, R. (2012). Ireland after Nama. New Regional Assemblies Announced. [online] Wordpress.com. Available at: https://irelandafternama.wordpress.com/2012/10/16/new-regional-assemblies-announced/ [Accessed 15 Dec. 2014].

Van Eegeraat, C. and O’Riordáin, S. (2013). New regional governance in Ireland: Perspectives and challenges’. [online] Available at: http://www.ipa.ie/pdf/NewRegionalGovernance_Admin61_No3.pdf [Accessed 5 Jan. 2015].

13 | P a g e