Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 24 May 2012

Vol. 766 No. 3

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2012: Committee and Remaining Stages

SECTION 1

Amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 19 are consequential to amendment No. 15. Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 are related to amendment No. 15. Therefore, amendments Nos. 1, 3, 15, 16, 17 and 19 will be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following subsection:

"(3) The Local Government Acts 1925 to 2007 and Part 4 may be cited together as the Local Government Acts 1925 to 2012.".

As Deputies will be aware, the Government approved proposals to establish single local authorities in Limerick and Tipperary on 28 June and 26 July 2011. In both cases the establishment of interim management arrangements, whereby a single person would oversee both authorities in advance of their full merger, was also approved. The intention is to ensure clear and cohesive leadership of the reorganisation process in both areas in advance of the establishment of unitary authorities by mid-2014.

The existing law on the position of managers is set out in Chapter 2 of Part 14 of the Local Government Act 2001. Section 144(1) of the 2001 Act provides that each county and city shall have a manager who shall be employed by the city or county council in question. The Department's advice is that the provision precludes the same person from being manager of more than one county or city and that amending legislation is required.

As I explained on Second Stage, the principal objective of the change is to enable the same person to be manager of more than one authority. For example, if a person is appointed as dual manager for Limerick county and city councils, he or she would act as manager of and perform functions for the county and the city. The two authorities would remain in existence as separate corporate entities pending their merger in 2014 under separate legislation but the manager would exercise his or her functions in tandem on the two councils.

The amendments provide for a number of changes to the 2001 Act. Amendment No. 15 inserts a new section to amend section 144 of the 2001 Act. The substantive change is contained in new section 13(b), which provides for the grouping of Limerick county and city councils and north and south Tipperary county councils, and for the appointment of one person as manager of those grouped authorities. This section also provides for the insertion of a new subsection (1B) in section 144 of the 2001 Act. In accordance with the new subsection (1B) the manager for a county or city in a group of authorities shall be an employee of whatever authority the Minister shall specify by order.

Section 145(3) of the 2001 Act provides that where a manager has not been appointed by resolution of a council on foot of a recommendation from the Public Appointment Service in the normal way, he or she is automatically appointed after a specified period. Amendment No. 16 amends subsection 3 of the 2001 Act to provide that the subsection applies to a county or city council in a group of authorities, as in the case of Limerick and Tipperary, in addition to individual authorities. A new subsection 3(a) is also inserted at subsection (b), which allows the Minister to appoint by order a person who already holds the office of manager in a city or county that is part of the group of authorities to the office of manager of a group of authorities. Amendment No. 17 inserts a new section 15 in the Bill, which makes a number of amendments in order to integrate the interim dual manager arrangements with the provisions dealing with the appointment of a deputy manager contained in section 148 of the Local Government Act 2001. Section 15(a) substitutes a new paragraph for paragraph 148(1)(a), to provide that in the case of a group of authorities, the manager must consult with the cathaoirleach of each authorities before he or she appoints an employee to be deputy manager.

The amendment to section 15(b) seeks to cover the situation where the manager has become unable to act and no deputy manager has been appointed or if the deputy manager is unable to act. Given the possibility for delay and disagreement in respect of an appointment in such circumstances, it is proposed to give the Minister the power to direct which one of the two cathaoirligh will make the appointment. The amendment at 15(c) inserts a new subsection 3(a) which makes clear that, in respect of a group of authorities, the deputy manager appointed shall be one and the same person.

In addition to the substantive amendments, there are a number of technical amendments. Amendment No. 1 updates the citation for the local government Acts to take account of the changes. Amendment No. 3 makes clear that the provisions to be inserted in section 144 of the Local Government Act 2001 can be commenced as required in accordance with section 1(3) of the Bill. Amendment No. 19 provides for an amendment to the Long Title to the Bill to include a reference to the position of manager, the subject of this group of amendment. These provisions provide the necessary statutory backing for interim dual management arrangements for ongoing implementation work leading to amalgamation of local authorities in Limerick and Tipperary. They form an important early element of an evolving programme of local government reform and development and I commend them to the House.

We have no issue with the appointment of interim managers. Will the persons appointed to the interim function in Limerick and Tipperary automatically become designated to lead the new unitary authorities after the 2014 local elections? I did not pick up that point in the contribution of the Minister of State. Are they jobs for life or are these important leadership roles in local government to be appointed on the basis of a three-year, five-year or seven-year term?

I have submitted eight amendments and they are mainly aimed at having the consent of the Oireachtas and the relevant local authorities. Having spoken to members of local authorities pencilled in for amalgamation, there is a major information gap. No information is drifting down to the members elected by the citizenry of the local authority areas. The amendments also include the word "localisation". While there is talk about centralisation in the Bill and the amendments, there is no talk about localisation and the need for devolution of power to local level.

Sinn Féin supports the abolition of most of the bodies in section 8, except the two regeneration bodies. Bodies were set up over the years and some have become obsolete. What they are doing is questionable. Some of them are doing good work but can be amalgamated. We think that putting the two regeneration projects together and having them under a single unitary local authority structure of Limerick city and county will create difficulties. Councillors from rural areas, such as Abbeyfeale, will have to preside over the regeneration of Limerick city. There will be a disconnect between them.

Regarding amendment No. 15, concerning deputy county managers, one of the points Sinn Féin has been trying to make about local government is that it is top-heavy. Small local authorities have directors of services, some of whom have now taken early retirement, but there is provision for these positions. The Minister of State is proposing to appoint deputy county managers. Will the county manager manage two counties? It seems as if the proposal is to include a deputy county manager, meaning there will be the same number of managers and directors of services. This will increase the top-heavy nature of local authorities. A senior executive officer is sufficient for running each section of local authorities. There are as many layers in local authorities as there are skins on an onion. It is also very regimental, from grade 2 to grade 8. That needs to be simplified, with greater responsibility placed on senior executive officers who are well capable of running sections, whether the housing section or the roads section. Sharing services and resources makes sense in many cases and Sinn Féin supports it. The problem is when the structure is abolished, such as the merging of Waterford City Council and Waterford County Council. Sharing services and resources is a good idea.

I refer to the amalgamation proposals of the local government review group, which is not directly related to this Bill. It arose in discussion on Second Stage. A number of counties will be merged and while this Bill does not directly deal with it, Sinn Féin opposes the merger of a local authority in Laois Offaly. The county should be the primary unit of local government and should be strengthened. Amalgamating local authorities in Laois and Offaly means Graiguecullen and Shannon Harbour being in the same local authority area. They are 90 miles apart and, as I hold clinics in both, I know there is a long distance between them. It is a long way from the River Barrow in County Carlow to Shannon Harbour. It will not lead to efficient local government. The county structure needs to be improved upon. We want more functions devolved. Doing so would mean that local authorities will be busier and more efficient, which they should be. We must have efficient units but we should not tamper with the county structure.

Yesterday, I referred to the costs of amalgamation. In the North, local authorities are being reduced from 26 to 11 under the reform of public administration. No cost estimate has been carried out on such a project here. I met with councillors in the North recently and the cost will be massive. Amalgamation does not come cheap and one of the possible negative effects is where the Government seeks to dispose of assets or property. Everyone knows it is hard enough to give away property at the moment. That will not compensate or fill the gap in the costs. There will be a significant cost to amalgamation. Amalgamating Laois and Offaly county councils will cost a huge amount of money and lead to a spreading and scattering of resources and expertise. We need to keep the county structure in place.

I regret there is so little time available for this Stage and for Second Stage. It is very difficult to debate the detail of the Bill when we have not been given a clear and coherent view of the how local government will be reformed and this includes institutional reform. I refer to the amalgamation plans which are proposed. Is it intended that these amalgamations are a pilot project?

I take a different view to Deputy Stanley on the county structure of local government. Our counties were formed between the 12th and 17th centuries and were devised by the crown administration. It is interesting to note that local government in Northern Ireland does not function on a county basis. It is possible to administer local government without using the county as the administrative unit. I suggest that the parish and community is the natural unit in Ireland because that is how people relate to each other and it the real strength of local life. I would have preferred to see this unit used in the reform of local government structures. The notion of the parish pump is an excellent idea because this is how people came together to help each other out if there was a fire, for example. However, the trend in Irish politics is to look up the ladder rather than down the ladder.

Planning expertise is better located in one central location rather than spread over two counties, for example. Cities are a unique case and in Europe, the city tends to be a driver of a surrounding region which can be quite extensive. In my view the amalgamation of Limerick city and county is perhaps too small a unit as we need to have big regions with small district councils within them. We should consider what system works in this country and the reason we have been so disappointed by politics is that our institutional arrangements do not reflect the strong and successful part of the Irish society which is the level below the county level. Are these amalgamation provisions to be a blueprint? Is it a money-saving device to save on procurement costs? What is the rationale for choosing these two counties? What is the long-term policy for local government reform?

I wish to ask that same question. What is the Minister's position as regards the various authorities recommended for grouping in the report? I refer to Carlow-Kilkenny which has been ear-marked in that group. I ask if it is proposed to amalgamate Carlow and Kilkenny and if so, how far advanced are these proposals? Is it a fact that the Minister is protecting his own constituency, just as Ministers have done in the past? I happen to believe this may well be the case. Has the Minister accepted this report and its recommendations? Is there a timescale for their implementation?

The Minister of State refers to clear and cohesive leadership. However, the fact of the matter is that we are way ahead of ourselves as regards north and south Tipperary county councils. It is hardly a good idea to amalgamate north and south Tipperary county councils when the two areas are divided on a number of important issues. They are two different economic development areas with north Tipperary in the Shannon area and south Tipperary in the south east. They are divided as regards tourism regions with north Tipperary in one tourism region and south Tipperary in another. They are also divided between two different HSE regions, south Tipperary in the south east region and north Tipperary in the western region. No action has been taken with regard to any of these three divisions. If an amalgamation of north and south Tipperary county councils were to be considered, one would assume these matters would be dealt with prior to any such amalgamation. This is my view and it is a widespread view in both north and south Tipperary. It is far from clear as to the potential for cost savings. It is clear there will be no savings as a result of the amalgamation of north and south Tipperary county councils, indeed costs will be incurred by the public and the commercial sector by way of increased commercial rates.

I ask the Minister of State to address some of those issues in her reply. In my view, north and south Tipperary have been picked out from these recommendations. There is no information on when other amalgamations will happen, if ever.

In reply to Deputy Niall Collins's specific questions, the designate interim manager will become the manager in 2014 and the period of that person's appointment is seven years with an option to extend to ten years. These are the normal provisions for such a post.

In reply to Deputy Stanley's questions about the extension of the time period for Limerick Regeneration, this is proposed to be a relatively short extension in order to tidy up matters that need to be addressed. However, I do not agree, and I believe many locals would also not agree to a further extension of time. I will not go into detail because it has been well aired but one of the problems with Limerick Regeneration was the fact that it was under different headings. It will now be centred in one office and this is considered to be a welcome development. It is not proposed to extend the time period any further.

On the question of the deputy manager, this is normal procedure whereby a person may deputise for the manager if necessary and it is the procedure in all local authorities. The Bill is not changing this procedure.

All the Deputies who contributed asked whether this reform of local government would be applied beyond Limerick and Tipperary. They asked about the timescale and whether there would be cost savings and whether services could be shared. I confirm that services can be shared in the meantime and this is part of the recommendations of the 2010 report of the local government efficiency review group to which Deputy Healy referred. That report made a number of recommendations, 106 in total and one of those recommendations is the possibility of amalgamating a number of counties. Views differ on this recommendation and this is the case even in the Chamber today, with Deputy Stanley not happy with the idea that the two counties in his area would be amalgamated. Deputy Healy advocates an amalgamation of Carlow and Kilkenny-----

(Interruptions).

The Deputy cannot be on both sides of that fence.

It is the Minister's constituency and he must have a view on it.

Deputy Catherine Murphy expressed a very interesting view on the notion of the municipality concept with the city and the surrounding hinterland. This is a very lively discussion and there are strong views on all sides. This is limited legislation in so far as it is providing for interim arrangements. It provides for other matters also, including the bodies to which we referred yesterday. As regards local authorities specifically, however, it is merely to provide interim arrangements for both authorities in Limerick and Tipperary.

The local government efficiency review implementation group will be publishing its first report, which will go to the Minister, Deputy Hogan. That will concern much broader recommendations on local government reform.

I am concerned that it is costing so much to amalgamate local authorities in Northern Ireland and I would be interested to know why. The intention, certainly in Limerick, is that it will save money. I hope it will save money in Tipperary as well. I do not know whether it is because of the unique political arrangements in Northern Ireland that it should cost money to amalgamate local authorities there. If there is a lesson to be learned from that, however, we should learn it.

Deputy Catherine Murphy asked if they were pilots but they are not as such. They are specific actions in specific areas and there will be further recommendations in regard to other areas, but they are not in this Bill. Legislation will be required if there are to be further amalgamations. In the context of the forthcoming report and any future legislation, there will be plenty of opportunity to debate all these issues. There will also be extensive consultation if there are further proposals.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 2 and 18 are consequential on amendments Nos. 9 and 10. Amendments Nos. 2, 9, 10 and 18 may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, subsection (3), line 24, after "Act" to insert ", other than sections 8 and 9,”.

As mentioned earlier, the Limerick Regeneration agencies will be dissolved. A new Limerick regeneration office has initially been set up with administrative support from Limerick City Council, but will report directly to the manager-designate of the new unitary authority in Limerick, once appointed. The establishment orders for the Limerick Regeneration agencies contained so-called sunset clauses. The agencies will cease to exist in June 2012. Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are required to give a brief extension to July to allow all the necessary arrangements to be put in place for the dissolution of the bodies, and the transfer of assets, liabilities, etc. The amendments will not delay the wind-up of the agencies, which is already under way.

Amendments Nos. 2 and 18 are technical amendments required as a consequence of amendments Nos. 9 and 10.

I think it is right to amalgamate the two regeneration agencies into the new unitary authority. I would disagree with my learned colleague, Deputy Stanley's view on the input of members of the new unitary authority from rural parts of County Limerick. They should have an oversight role in the regeneration projects which are ongoing in four areas of Limerick city. The work of the city's regeneration projects has had far-reaching consequences for many rural parts of county Limerick. It is right that public representatives from rural areas of the county, who will be members of the new unitary authority, should and will have a say in the project's future direction.

I look forward to having somebody from as far away as Abbeyfeale or Mountcollins being mayor of Limerick city and county through the new unitary authority. It will be unique to see someone from a rural part of Limerick being the mayor of the city and county, as part of a unitary authority.

As regards rolling up the regeneration programmes, our argument is not to retain both of them. Our point concerns the plan for a single local authority structure covering such a vast area with different interests and regeneration issues, because it is very much a city project. If those driving the project do not have a singular focus, it will not work very well; that is the problem. It is a question of getting the best from the resources going into the project and having a complete focus. That is why we think it should be under a single city authority.

I do not need to reiterate the point. It is correct that the whole regeneration project should be under one body. The fact that the director of regeneration services will now report to the new manager is a positive thing, and is seen as such.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 3 has already been discussed with amendment No. 1.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 3, subsection (3), line 27, after "provisions" to insert the following:

", and for the insertion of different provisions in section 144 of the Act of 2001 effected by section 13”.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3

I am opposing this section but will not put it to a vote.

Question, "That section 3 stand part of the Bill", put and declared carried.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5

Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 8 are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 4, line 16, after "Reform," to insert the following:

"the Houses of the Oireachtas, relevant agencies and local authorities,".

These amendments propose that the Oireachtas and relevant local authorities would be consulted. If we are merging or abolishing something, particularly democratic structures, the democratically elected members should be involved in that process.

The same issue of following good practice also applies to amendments Nos. 5 and 8. I was surprised that members of relevant bodies - at the least the ones to whom I spoke - were not even aware that this was happening, or that the Oireachtas was discussing this Bill and matters were at such an advanced stage.

These amendments seek to introduce a requirement for the consent of the Oireachtas and-or consultation with the Oireachtas, agencies and local authorities in the administrative process of establishing new bodies, and in the preparation of transfer orders in the context of bodies that are being dissolved. The principle of a Minister in a sector such as local government having the power to establish bodies to provide shared services for local authorities is long established and is recognised by the courts.

The Bill has strengthened the link between the principles and policies in primary legislation and the bodies to be established. The consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform is required before any body can be established and before any transfer order is made. Therefore, not only is the issue of efficiency and effectiveness within the sector considered, but the wider public service efficiency and reform agenda will also be fully considered.

The rationalisation programme has already been delayed due to the necessity to dissolve bodies through primary legislation, and it would not be in the interests of efficiency to accept these amendments. Therefore, I do not propose to accept them.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendment No. 5 has already been discussed with amendment No. 4.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 4, line 27, after "Minister," to insert the following:

"in consultation with the Houses of the Oireachtas, relevant agencies and local authorities,".

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 4, lines 39 and 40, to delete "or centralisation" and substitute ", centralisation or localisation".

This amendment proposes to insert the word "localisation". The focus here is on centralisation and regionalisation. If services are being decentralised from central government to regional level, that is fine. In this case there would seem to be one way traffic in that the services are being transferred from local level to central level. That is the reason I propose the insertion of the word "localisation" where it makes sense in the section.

This amendment seeks to require the Minister to have regard to the desirability for localisation as well as centralisation of services in making decisions in regard to the establishment of a State body. Localisation of service delivery is the existing default position, that is, a local authority provides the service. In order to maintain services with diminishing resources, it is necessary that staff and management in local authorities work together to find efficiencies of operation and share service delivery where possible. I am basically saying that it is the default position already. Therefore, I do not propose to accept the amendment.

Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 5, line 5, to delete " ‘services' includes—" and substitute the following:

" ‘services' not already being provided by boards may include—".

Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 5 agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 6, line 11, after "Reform" to insert "and the Houses of the Oireachtas".

Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 7 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 7, before section 8, to insert the following new section:

8.—The Limerick Northside Regeneration Agency (Establishment) Order 2007 (S.I. No. 275 of 2007) is amended—

(a) in Article 2, by substituting “1 August 2012” for “the 15th day of June 2012”,

(b) in Article 4, by substituting “31 July 2012” for “14th June, 2012”, and

(c) in sub-article (2) of Article 6, by substituting “31 July 2012” for “the 14th June, 2012”.”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 7, before section 8, to insert the following new section:

9.—The Limerick Southside Regeneration Agency (Establishment) Order 2007 (S.I. No. 276 of 2007) is amended—

(a) in Article 2, by substituting “1 August 2012” for “the 15th day of June 2012”,

(b) in Article 4, by substituting “31 July 2012” for “14th June, 2012”, and

(c) in sub-article (2) of Article 6, by substituting “31 July 2012” for “the 14th June, 2012”.”.

Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 8

Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 7, line 22, to delete paragraph (f).

I have already made points in regard to Limerick that relate to the Limerick regeneration project.

Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 7, line 23, to delete paragraph (g).

Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 8 agreed to.
NEW SECTION

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 7, before section 9, to insert the following new section:

"9.—The administrative area of the new Limerick Local Government Authority shall be extended to include the residential areas of Shannon Banks, Westbury, Carrig Meade and Athlundard in Co. Clare and shall also include that part of the campus of the University of Limerick also in Co. Clare.".

I referred to this issue yesterday evening as part of my Second Stage contribution to the debate. As a representative of Limerick city, the Minister of State will be well aware of the issue that is the subject of this amendment. Over the years Limerick city has spilled over into parts of County Clare. There are a number of the extensions of the urban parts of County Limerick which have been built in County Clare which, effectively, are an integral part of Limerick city. Second, the development of a large portion of the campus of the University of Limerick has also occurred in part of County Clare. That is served by a number of infrastructures, including at least three bridge crossings of the River Shannon as part of the University of Limerick campus.

From speaking to people who are involved at a senior level in local government in Limerick County Council, Limerick City Council and people who are very much at the centre of the Denis Brosnan project, which is driving this merger, the view is very much that in order for the job to be complete and to have Limerick city recognised in its totality, that these parts, which I have detailed, which are urban centres should form part of the greater Limerick city area, as part of an administrative area of the new single unitary authority. For those intents and purposes, it is right thing to do. I understand and recognise that there will be an argument about breaching of county boundaries but we have to rise above that if we are to do the right thing. In looking to the future and developing the spatial strategies throughout the country, we have to rise above small squabbles over parts of county boundaries. As local representatives, we also have to identify that.

I do not have to teach the Minister of State, as a representative of the Limerick city, how to suck eggs. She knows the issues as well as I do, if not better. It is my view and the position of our party that these areas should form part of the administrative area of the new Limerick unitary authority.

I wish to express my opposition to the proposal from the Fianna Fáil spokesperson on local government, namely, that "The administrative area of the new Limerick Local Government Authority shall be extended to include the residential areas of Shannon Banks, Westbury, Carrig Meade and Athlundard ... and shall also include that part of the campus of the University of Limerick also in Co. Clare". That proposal was floating around for the lifetime of the previous Government and some Fianna Fáil representatives feigned opposition to it. It was one of the proposals which was defeated very early on in the lifetime of this Government and I am thankful for that. Not content with having proposed it and having seen it defeated, Fianna Fáil now proposes to reintroduce this proposal. I received a call this morning from Councillor Pascal Fitzgerald who represents that area and I can tell Deputy that there is very little support from any of the residents of that area for his proposal. The Deputy spoke about recognising the totality of Limerick city but I call for the totality of County Clare to be recognised for once and for all. This proposal was effectively put to bed only six months ago and now it has been raised again on the floor of this Chamber by the back door.

Deputy Collins will know from a predecessor of his - Gerard Collins, who was a TD for County Limerick - who is on the board of Dublin Airport Authority, which controls Shannon, the damage that has been done to County Clare by previous Fianna Fáil Governments. Not alone was Aer Lingus privatised by Fianna Fáil in order that it can now leave County Clare on a whim and not alone was Aer Rianta International-----

On a point of order, what the Deputy is saying is incorrect.

Not alone was Aer Rianta International transferred-----

I ask Deputy McNamara to moderate his contribution.

Yes. Not alone was Aer Rianta International transferred to Dublin Airport Authority but now Deputy Collins proposes that part of Limerick be transferred to Clare. This would have repercussions for rates and for the university, which is not a university for Limerick only but for the entire mid-west. If Deputy Collins cares to read the submission made by the University of Limerick to the Brosnan report he would find it made no proposal to have any part of its campus transferred from where it is now in County Clare-----

-----and expressed satisfaction with the existing arrangement and the local authorities which deal with it. I oppose the amendment in the strongest terms possible and I call upon my colleagues to defeat this proposal for once and for all.

I have been listening to the debate and following it closely. Coming from Waterford I understand Deputy Collins's point from an administrative point of view. Cities need the potential to expand. Waterford city finds itself in a very similar position whereby a large part of the city is in the jurisdiction of Kilkenny County Council. I do not want to enter into the Limerick and Clare argument, because we have enough of it between Waterford and Kilkenny in the area I represent, but we need to look beyond the parochial view and this is no criticism of Deputy McNamara because I am as passionate about my constituency as he is about his. He is perfectly within his rights to espouse the comments he made.

The Minister of State and the departmental officials need to examine formulating a mechanism or system whereby county and city managers responsible for administrative areas next to each other are required to co-ordinate their administration and policies in the best interests of the citizens on both sides of the administrative boundary. When people pull in different directions it does not work in the best interests of the particular city or region. We are also getting a sense of this during this debate and I have seen this in Waterford, which is a bit disjointed. Whether we introduce new mechanisms or systems in the existing local authority structure or enhance the role of regional authorities in this respect we must do something about it. I do not think we will get the agreement sought by Deputy Collins for the various reasons which were well debated and documented prior to the discussion on this amendment.

Where cities are divided or where the boundary splits a city there is a feeling it is to the detriment of exploiting the full potential development of the city. We need to look beyond this and ensure the local authorities working in the city do so in the best interests of the overall development of the local authority area and region and in the best interests of the citizens.

These issues always give rise to very strong feelings. The amendment refers to the report of the Limerick local government committee which recommended the incorporation of a small area north of the River Shannon in County Clare. There is logic to the committee's proposal in terms of the overall shape of the city and with regard to the points made by Deputy Coffey. However, the recommendation does not enjoy the same degree of support as and is not essential to the core Limerick element of the Brosnan report. Therefore it will not be implemented.

In the case of the area being developed by the University of Limerick, it is understood, and Deputy McNamara just referred to this, the university did not request this be transferred. I live very close to the boundary and I am very familiar with the people in the area, the issues and the strong feelings to which this gives rise. Deputy Coffey made a fair point. There is certainly room for more co-ordination and co-operation between neighbouring local authorities, particularly where cities are growing and expanding. I strongly advocate this. In response to specific amendment tabled by Deputy Collins, we do not propose to accept it.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 9 agreed to.
NEW SECTION

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 8, before section 10, but in Part 2, to insert the following new section:

10.—(1) Section 10 (amended by section 19(1)(k) of the Local Government (Household Charge) Act 2011) of the Local Government (Charges) Act 2009 is amended by substituting the following subsection for subsection (8):

"(8) In this section ‘relevant board' means—

(a) the Local Government Computer Services Board established by the Local Government Computer Services Board (Establishment) Order 1975 (S.I. No. 212 of 1975), or a body to whom the

functions of that Board have been transferred by order under section 5A (inserted by section 7 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2012) of the Local Government

(Corporate Bodies) Act 1971, and

(b) the Local Government Management Services Board established by the Local Government Management Services Board (Establishment) Order 1996 (S.I. No. 410 of 1996), or a body to

whom the functions of that Board have been transferred by order under section 5A (inserted by section 7 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2012) of the Local Government (Corporate Bodies) Act 1971,

or either of them.".

(2) Section 13 of the Local Government (Household Charge) Act 2011 is amended by substituting the following subsection for subsection (8):

"(8) In this section ‘relevant board' means—

(a) the Local Government Computer Services Board established by the Local Government Computer Services Board (Establishment) Order 1975 (S.I. No. 212 of 1975), or a body to whom the functions of that Board have been transferred by order under section 5A (inserted by section 7 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2012) of the Local Government (Corporate Bodies) Act 1971, and

(b) the Local Government Management Services Board established by the Local Government Management Services Board (Establishment) Order 1996 (S.I. No. 410 of 1996), or a body to whom the functions of that Board have been transferred by order under section 5A (inserted by section 7 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2012) of the Local Government (Corporate Bodies) Act 1971,

or either of them.".".

The household charge legislation will be amended to reflect the amalgamation of the Local Government Computer Services Board and the Local Government Management Services Board into the Local Government Management Agency. It is a technical amendment.

Amendment agreed to.
Sections 10 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 9, after line 35, to insert the following new section:

"PART 4

AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 2 OF PART 14 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2001

13.—Section 144 of the Act of 2001 is amended by—

(a) substituting the following subsection for subsection (1):

"(1) For every county and city there shall be a manager to be known as ‘the ....... County Manager' or ‘the ....... City Manager', as appropriate (with the name of the county or city prefixed), who shall, subject to subsections (1A) and (1B), hold employment under that county council or city council, as the case may be.",

and

(b) inserting the following subsections after subsection (1):

"(1A) (a) In the case of Limerick County and Limerick City, in this Chapter referred to as a ‘group of authorities’, the same person shall be manager for the county and city concerned.

(b) In the case of North Tipperary County and South Tipperary County, in this Chapter referred to as a ‘group of authorities’, the same person shall be manager for each of the counties concerned.

(1B) The manager for a county or city in a group of authorities shall hold employment under the council of whichever county or city in that group the Minister shall, by order, specify.".".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 9, after line 35, to insert the following new section:

14.—Section 145 of the Act of 2001 is amended—

(a) in subsection (3), by substituting “Where, as respects a county council or city council, including a county council or city council in a group of authorities—” for “Where, as respects a county council or city council —”, and

(b) by inserting the following subsection after subsection (3):

"(3A) In relation to the first appointment, after the commencement of Part 4 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2012, of a manager for a county or city in each group of authorities, the Minister may, by order, appoint to that position a person who, at such commencement, is the manager for a county or city included in the group of authorities concerned, other than a person appointed under subsection (4), and in such case subsections (1)(a), (2) and (3) shall not apply.”.”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 9, after line 35, to insert the following new section:

15.—Section 148 of the Act of 2001 is amended—

(a) in subsection (1) by substituting the following paragraph for paragraph (a)—

"(a) A manager, following consultation with the Cathaoirleach of the county or city council concerned, or, subject to subsection (3A), in the case of a manager for a county or city in a group of authorities, following consultation with the Cathaoirleach of each of the authorities in the group of authorities concerned, may by order appoint an employee of the authority or authorities concerned to be a deputy manager for the purposes of subsection (2) and may at any time terminate such appointment.”,

(b) in paragraph (a) of subsection (3) by substituting “the Cathaoirleach of the county or city council concerned, or in the case of a group of authorities, the Cathaoirleach of such county or city council as the Minister shall direct, may appoint an employee of the local authority or local authorities concerned” for “the relevant Cathaoirleach may appoint an employee of the local authority”, and

(c) by inserting the following subsection after subsection (3)—

"(3A) Where a deputy manager is appointed for a county or city in a group of authorities, the same person shall be appointed to be the deputy manager for each of the counties or the county and city in the group of authorities concerned.".".

Amendment agreed to.
TITLE

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 3, line 10, to delete "TO REVOKE" and substitute "TO AMEND AND REVOKE".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 3, line 12, after "LEABHARLANNA;" to insert the following:

"TO AMEND THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2001 IN RELATION TO THE POSITION OF MANAGER;".

Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Is it possible to speak on the Bill?

Yes, we can debate what is actually in the Bill.

Many Deputies, who were local authority members, as I was for a number of years, will remember that at one stage the county manager, the county engineer and the county secretary were the senior management and the same applied in the cities. They basically ran the local authority area. We then had "Better Local Government - A Programme for Change" which introduced a whole new tier of directors of services. The Minister has a report on the possible amalgamation of Waterford County Council and Waterford City Council. I have an open mind on this given that in the current economic climate we need to deliver services with the best possible value for taxpayers' money. That reform agenda must protect the services and give the public and their representatives in the area every opportunity to give their views as they always have done. The administration of these systems should be reformed and become more efficient in delivering the services.

I understand that more comprehensive legislation on local government reform is to be introduced. There will also be reform of boundaries of Dáil constituencies. Deputy Healy will agree with me on this matter. Many areas in north County Waterford for which Waterford County Council is responsible are in the Dáil constituency of Tipperary South. It causes confusion and people feel they are not being looked after properly. We need better administration of our local government structures in such cases. I welcome the Bill in general. We need to reform and become more efficient for the betterment of our citizens and country.

I thank all contributors to this constructive debate. We managed to get through all the Committee Stage amendments in the time allocated, which is a tribute to all who participated. Obviously there are wider issues of reform of the local government system that people will discuss in the future, but this is a step along that way. A number of Members present in the Chamber live in the areas concerned in Limerick and Tipperary. As always in any debate on local government issues in this House there is a wide range of expertise, experience and knowledge, which was evident in the debate.

I also thank the officials for their assistance.

I wish to be associated with the kind remarks of the Minister of State and Deputy Coffey.

Question put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 91; Níl, 18.

  • Bannon, James.
  • Barry, Tom.
  • Breen, Pat.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Butler, Ray.
  • Buttimer, Jerry.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Carey, Joe.
  • Coffey, Paudie.
  • Collins, Niall.
  • Conaghan, Michael.
  • Conlan, Seán.
  • Connaughton, Paul J.
  • Conway, Ciara.
  • Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Cowen, Barry.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Creighton, Lucinda.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Doherty, Regina.
  • Donohoe, Paschal.
  • Dooley, Timmy.
  • Dowds, Robert.
  • Doyle, Andrew.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • English, Damien.
  • Farrell, Alan.
  • Feighan, Frank.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Fitzpatrick, Peter.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Flanagan, Terence.
  • Fleming, Sean.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Harris, Simon.
  • Hayes, Brian.
  • Heydon, Martin.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Humphreys, Heather.
  • Humphreys, Kevin.
  • Keating, Derek.
  • Keaveney, Colm.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Kelly, Alan.
  • Kenny, Seán.
  • Kirk, Seamus.
  • Kyne, Seán.
  • Lawlor, Anthony.
  • Lynch, Ciarán.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • Lyons, John.
  • McConalogue, Charlie.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McGrath, Michael.
  • McGuinness, John.
  • McHugh, Joe.
  • McNamara, Michael.
  • Maloney, Eamonn.
  • Mathews, Peter.
  • Mitchell O’Connor, Mary.
  • Mulherin, Michelle.
  • Murphy, Dara.
  • Murphy, Eoghan.
  • Nash, Gerald.
  • Naughten, Denis.
  • Neville, Dan.
  • Nolan, Derek.
  • Nulty, Patrick.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
  • O’Donnell, Kieran.
  • O’Donovan, Patrick.
  • O’Mahony, John.
  • O’Reilly, Joe.
  • O’Sullivan, Jan.
  • Penrose, Willie.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Ryan, Brendan.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Sherlock, Sean.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Spring, Arthur.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Troy, Robert.
  • Walsh, Brian.
  • White, Alex.

Níl

  • Boyd Barrett, Richard.
  • Collins, Joan.
  • Colreavy, Michael.
  • Daly, Clare.
  • Donnelly, Stephen S.
  • Ferris, Martin.
  • Flanagan, Luke ‘Ming’.
  • Healy, Seamus.
  • Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
  • McDonald, Mary Lou.
  • McGrath, Finian.
  • McLellan, Sandra.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
  • O’Brien, Jonathan.
  • Pringle, Thomas.
  • Ross, Shane.
  • Stanley, Brian.
  • Wallace, Mick.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe; Níl, Deputies Catherine Murphy and Jonathan O’Brien.
Question declared carried.
Top
Share