Amendments Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, 17, 18, 36 to 70, inclusive, 77, 91 to 96, inclusive, 98, and 100 to 102, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.
Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) Bill 2023: Report and Final Stages
Bill recommitted in respect of amendments Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 7, lines 16 and 17, to delete all words from and including “and” in line 16 down to and including line 17 and substitute the following:
“to extend the circumstances within which a person may apply for an affordable dwelling purchase arrangement under the Affordable Housing Act 2021 and for that purpose to amend that Act; to provide for consultation with the Public Appointments Service prior to a declaration under the Local Government Act 2001 in relation to qualifications in respect of certain posts in the local government sector and for that purpose to further amend that Act; and to provide for matters connected therewith.”.
This group of amendments deals with two miscellaneous amendments and consequential amendments to the Long Title and the renaming of the Bill. Part 8 deals with two miscellaneous amendments, first to the Affordable Housing Act 2021 to provide for the expansion of the circumstances within which a person may apply for an affordable dwelling purchase arrangement, and second to the Local Government Act 2001 to provide consultation with the Public Appointments Service prior to making a declaration under the Local Government Act 2001 on qualifications in respect of certain posts in the local government sector.
I will go through the amendments. Amendment No. 1 is an amendment to the Long Title to ensure it reflects the contents of the Bill to include the fact that amendments will also be made to the Affordable Housing Act 2021 and the Local Government Act 2001.
Amendment No. 2 arises as a consequence of amending the Long Title. The Short Title will be amended to the Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023.
Amendment No. 3 is a consequential amendment to the collective citation for the Local Government Acts 1925 to 2023 arising from the new miscellaneous amendments to the Local Government Act 2001 in the Bill.
Amendment No. 18 is a minor rearrangement of sections of the Bill as a consequence of miscellaneous amendments to the Local Government Act 2001 contained in the new section 66. Amendment No. 18 removes paragraphs (e) to (g), inclusive, from section 20 and reinserts them in section 66 in order that certain amendments to the Local Government Act 2001 are all in one section.
Amendment Nos. 17, 36 to 70, inclusive, 91 to 96, inclusive, and 100 to 102, inclusive, substitute the "Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023" in all places "Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) Act 2023" appears in the Bill. These are consequential amendments arising from amendment No. 2, which amends the Short Title.
Amendment No. 77 is the substantive amendment that inserts a new section 5 in the Bill that amends sections 10(3) and 10(5) of the Affordable Housing Act 2021. The new section 65(b)(i) restates much of the existing section 10(3) of the Affordable Housing Act 2021 while continuing to provide for a person to be eligible to apply for an affordable home under the local authority affordable purchase scheme if he or she has experienced a divorce or separation. The substitution amends the subsection by broadening the definition of fresh start to allow for an effective reset of the first-time buyer status after divorce or separation regardless of the previous property ownership status, thereby allowing applicants who are eligible by virtue of experiencing divorce or separation to have owned a home or homes previously once that home was their primary residence. The new section 65(b)(ii) restates much of the existing section 10(5) of the Affordable Housing Act 2021 while continuing to provide for a person to be eligible to apply for an affordable home under the local authority affordable purchase scheme if he or she has undergone bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings. The substitution amends the subsection by broadening the definition of fresh start to allow for the effective reset of the first-time buyer status after bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings regardless of the previous property ownership status, thereby allowing applicants who are eligible by virtue of experiencing bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings to have owned a home or homes previously once that home was their primary residence. These amendments will ensure that if such an event happens in a person's life, he or she is eligible for to apply for an affordable house under the local authority affordable purchase scheme. Amendment No. 77 further inserts section 65(a) to the Bill as a minor consequential amendment to section 1(2) of the Affordable Housing Act 2021 related to collective citation.
Amendment No. 77 is a substantive amendment that inserts a new section 66 to amend section 160(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 2001 to provide for the Minister to consult with Public Appointments Service prior to declaring qualification for certain posts in the local government sector. Substitution of "the Public Appointments Service" for "the Commission for Public Service Appointments" in a new subparagraph (b)(i) reflects the consultation practice that has been in operation by amending the party with whom the Minister needs to consult from "the Commission for Public Service Appointments" to "the Public Appointments Service". This amendment will ensure that the correct consultation procedure is laid down in section 160(1)(b) of the Local Government Act.
The amendment further provides for a new subparagraph 160(1)(b)(ii) to ensure that the validity of early declarations made under section 160 will not be held to be invalid by reason only of the fact that consultation with the Commission for Public Service Appointments did not take place. This is a necessary provision that arises from the fact that while consultation did take place with the Public Appointments Service prior to declaring these early qualifications, consultations with the Commission for Public Service Appointments did not happen.
Amendment No. 77 also inserts a new subparagraph 160(1)(b)(iii) in section 160(1)(b) to provide that the amendment-----
Is the Minister of State speaking to amendment No. 7?
I am speaking to amendment No. 77.
The amendment is not in this grouping.
The Minister of State is speaking to amendment No. 77.
The Minister of State is speaking to amendment No. 77, which is in this grouping.
To re-emphasise, amendment No. 77 also inserts a new subparagraph 160(1)(b)(iii) in section 160(1)(b) to provide that the amendment to new subparagraph 161(1)(b)(ii) will not affect any legal cases that are in being. This amendment will ensure that where legal proceedings have been initiated prior to the commencement of section 66 of the Bill, such proceedings will not be affected. This is an important provision.
On a general note, it is good that we have extra time for this Bill. I hope we can all work together to try to get it through the House tonight, if possible.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 7, line 22, to delete "Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) Act 2023" and substitute"Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 7, to delete lines 23 and 24 and substitute the following:
"(2) The Local Government Acts 1925 to 2023 and this Act (other than Part 5 and section 65) may be cited together as the Local Government Acts 1925 to 2023.".
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Amendment No. 4, in the name of Deputy Bacik, has been ruled out of order as being outside the scope of the Bill
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 10, lines 25 to 29, to delete all words from and including "(1) The" in line 25 down to and including line 29 and substitute the following:
"(1) The Minister shall, not later than 2 years after the establishment day, conduct a review of the operation and effectiveness of this Act and shall, not later than 3 months after the end of that period of 2 years, or on the completion of the review, whichever is the earlier, make a report, in writing, to each House of the Oireachtas of the findings of the review and of the conclusions drawn from those findings.".
This is a simple amendment that we believe is practical and we hope the Minister of State will support it. We are seeking is to review the function of the office after two years rather than the three years proposed. We believe that leaves us enough time for any teething problems to be evident. We also believe that by the time the review is completed and coded into legislation, the Bill, as it stands, does not give enough space to the Oireachtas to implement whatever changes need to be made ahead of the election of a mayor in 2029.
I thank the Deputy. Amendment No. 5 is similar to the amendment tabled by Deputy Quinlivan on Committee Stage and proposes to reduce the review period from three years after the office of mayor is established to two years. As I outlined on Committee Stage, we can all agree that once the office of mayor is established and the mayor is in situ for the appropriate period, there will need to be a review of the operation and effect of this historic legislation. That is something on which I am strong. The Bill makes provision for such a review.
The question is when is the appropriate time to hold a review and a number of factors need to be considered. The independent advisory group report recommended that a review would take place at the end of the third year of the mayoral term to enable the enactment of any changes required and to reflect the assignment of any new functions in advance of the next mayoral election. This Bill is consistent with that approach. I have consistently referred to the independent advisory group report because it was a good piece of work, as we all agree.
The pre-legislative scrutiny report of the Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage suggested a review after a very short period of one year. Indeed, a review after two years is still a relatively short period. It is important that adequate time is provided to allow for the embedding and integration of the new structure for Limerick City and County Council provided for in this Bill. On balance, I consider, as I stated on Committee Stage, that a three-year period is an appropriate period for the holding of a review. However, this is the outside timeframe and there is nothing to prevent a review in advance of that.
I should also mention the importance of the role of the Limerick mayor and government consultative forum, which will facilitate engagement between the mayor and national government. It is a statutory body. It will also review and advise on how the new structures are operating and on any review of the legislation.
Amendment No. 6 is in the name of my colleague, Deputy Leddin. It proposes a new subsection (3) in section 7 to provide that the mayor may prepare a report for the consideration of the Minister for Finance identifying potential new sources of income for Limerick. Again, this was discussed on Committee Stage and the Deputy spoke about the potential tourism tax and similar sources of income. As I outlined on Committee Stage, while local authorities can charge for specific goods and services and levy commercial rates, they do not have a role in taxation policy. In any event, the preparation of a report should be a matter for the mayor to decide and there is nothing that would prevent the mayor from considering new sources of income and preparing a report for the consideration of the Minister for Finance on same. However, I do not consider it appropriate or necessary to include such provision in the legislation. I am of the view that the Bill already provides a mechanism to deal with the substantive issue the Deputy has raised. I reiterate the importance of the role of Limerick mayor and government consultative forum in the context of the amendment put forward by Deputy Quinlivan. The forum will facilitate engagement generally between the mayor and national government, including the Minister for Finance, and will also have a role in advising and making recommendations on the issues arising from the establishment of the office of mayor, additional functions that should be conferred on the office of the mayor, the funding of Limerick City and County Council in this context and the impact on Limerick of proposed legislation or Government policy. The forum will provide the ideal platform for detailed engagement and consideration of a wide range of matters regarding the office of mayor, including additional functions and sources of funding. All of these matters will feed into the review under section 7.
I am not minded to accept the amendments. I hope that the legislation provides the framework to go some way towards what is being proposed.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 6 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 11, to delete lines 26 to 29 and substitute the following:
"(8)(a) The Mayor shall not, while holding office as mayor, engage in any trade, profession, vocation or other occupation, whether remunerated or otherwise, which might reasonably be seen to be capable of interfering or to be incompatible with the performance of his or her functions as Mayor.
(b) Furthermore, the Mayor shall not engage in any other type of paid employment during their term of office.".
I also submitted this amendment on Committee Stage. If we want the position of mayor to be truly transformational for local democracy, the position of mayor must be the sole focus of everybody elected. To allow for other employment during the term of office would be a definite signal to the electorate that this is not a role that has much value. If it is to have value, it must be the single focus of any elected mayor and the removal of the opportunity for other trade or occupational opportunities will ensure the integrity of the position is maintained. As the Minister of State will be well aware, when the plebiscite took place in 2019, a similar plebiscite was defeated in Waterford and Cork for reasons. In Limerick, it narrowly passed for reasons. We need to convince those people who did not vote for it, and if we do not enact something like this amendment, we will probably have another problem, going forward. That is the genesis of the amendment.
I thank the Deputy. On a point of clarification, if a Member is not present in the House, do I still speak to the amendment? I do. That is fine.
Amendment No. 8 in the name of Deputy Paul Murphy would prohibit the mayor from having any other occupation while amendment No. 7 in the name of Deputy Quinlivan, my Limerick colleague, and others, seeks to stop the mayor from having any other paid employment for the duration of his or her term.
For the record, since the amendments are grouped we will discuss them together, even though the proposer is absent.
That is fine. I thank the Chairman for that clarification. I thought as much but it is good to have it clarified for the record.
We had a very open discussion on this subject on Committee Stage. I recognise the good intentions of the amendments and appreciate that their aim is to ensure that Limerick can expect to have a mayor who is fully committed to advancing the issues that concern Limerick people in their daily lives. Indeed, we are all working to that aim but Deputy Quinlivan's point is well made.
As promised on Committee Stage, I have considered this issue and have once again studied the provisions of section 9 as they currently stand. As I said previously, the office of mayor is a full-time, demanding role. It is a very responsible position with a salary level commensurate with that responsibility. Section 9(5) states that the mayor will serve on a "full-time basis" for his or her term of office, while section 9(8) provides that the mayor is prohibited from engaging in any occupation which would interfere or be incompatible with his or her role as mayor. The mayor will be subject to the ethics provisions of the Local Government Act and the code of conduct for the local government service. Having reflected on the matter, I remain of the view that on balance these provisions are sufficient to ensure the person who is elected mayor of Limerick will have a full-time focus on being mayor. More importantly, the elected council of Limerick has strong powers for holding the mayor to account in the performance of his or her duties. The council will be highly motivated to ensure the mayor performs and delivers for the people of Limerick and this is the most effective and appropriate way of ensuring the mayor is fully focused on his or her mayoral responsibilities. On that basis, I do not propose to accept the amendments.
Amendment put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 49; Níl, 72; Staon, 0.
Tá
- Andrews, Chris.
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Barry, Mick.
- Berry, Cathal.
- Boyd Barrett, Richard.
- Brady, John.
- Browne, Martin.
- Cairns, Holly.
- Clarke, Sorca.
- Collins, Joan.
- Conway-Walsh, Rose.
- Cronin, Réada.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Cullinane, David.
- Daly, Pa.
- Doherty, Pearse.
- Donnelly, Paul.
- Ellis, Dessie.
- Farrell, Mairéad.
- Gannon, Gary.
- Guirke, Johnny.
- Harkin, Marian.
- Kenny, Martin.
- Kerrane, Claire.
- Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
- McNamara, Michael.
- Mitchell, Denise.
- Munster, Imelda.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Mythen, Johnny.
- Nash, Ged.
- Nolan, Carol.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Reilly, Louise.
- O'Rourke, Darren.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
- Ó Laoghaire, Donnchadh.
- Ó Murchú, Ruairí.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- Pringle, Thomas.
- Quinlivan, Maurice.
- Ryan, Patricia.
- Shanahan, Matt.
- Sherlock, Sean.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stanley, Brian.
- Tóibín, Peadar.
- Tully, Pauline.
- Wynne, Violet-Anne.
Níl
- Browne, James.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Colm.
- Butler, Mary.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Cahill, Jackie.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Cannon, Ciarán.
- Carroll MacNeill, Jennifer.
- Chambers, Jack.
- Collins, Michael.
- Collins, Niall.
- Costello, Patrick.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Cowen, Barry.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowe, Cathal.
- Devlin, Cormac.
- Dillon, Alan.
- Donnelly, Stephen.
- Donohoe, Paschal.
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Farrell, Alan.
- Feighan, Frankie.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harris, Simon.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Heydon, Martin.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Humphreys, Heather.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Lahart, John.
- Lawless, James.
- Leddin, Brian.
- Madigan, Josepha.
- Martin, Catherine.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- McEntee, Helen.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McHugh, Joe.
- Moynihan, Aindrias.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Murnane O'Connor, Jennifer.
- Naughton, Hildegarde.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
- O'Brien, Darragh.
- O'Brien, Joe.
- O'Callaghan, Jim.
- O'Connor, James.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- O'Donovan, Patrick.
- O'Dowd, Fergus.
- O'Gorman, Roderic.
- O'Sullivan, Christopher.
- O'Sullivan, Pádraig.
- Ó Cathasaigh, Marc.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Phelan, John Paul.
- Rabbitte, Anne.
- Ring, Michael.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smyth, Niamh.
- Smyth, Ossian.
- Stanton, David.
Staon
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Denise Mitchell and Maurice Quinlivan; Níl, Deputies Hildegarde Naughton and Cormac Devlin.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 8 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 22 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 12, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:
“(6) The Mayor shall have as a function an ambassadorial role in the promotion and delivery of a living wage in business contained within the administrative area covered by Limerick City and County Council.
(7) The Mayoral role shall have promotional and delivery responsibilities in the advertising and promotion of Limerick as a national and international tourist destination.
(8) The Mayoral role shall have responsibility for the organisation and chairing of the joint policing committee.
(9) The Mayor shall have executive powers in the realms of waste management.
(10) The Mayor shall have executive powers for public realm improvements including disused and unused public spaces.
(11) The Mayor shall have oversight with regards to the implementation of the Limerick Regeneration projects, and any subsequent regeneration programmes, and shall produce an annual report to be delivered to councillors regarding the status of the regeneration programmes.
(12) The Mayoral role shall, subject to section 213 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, incorporate executive functions from the Chief Executive the realms of land acquisition, with all purchases being subject to ratification by Limerick City and County Council.”.
This amendment seeks additional powers for the mayor. Again, we discussed this on Committee Stage but we were not convinced by the responses we got then. A number of new subsections are proposed in the amendment.
The proposed new subsection (6) refers to the introduction of a living wage, as committed to in the programme for Government. My party and I are committed to delivering a living wage for citizens to allow people to live with dignity. If the mayor could have a promotional and ambassadorial role in the delivery of a living wage, it would allow for this idea and ambition to be highlighted to a larger number of people.
If we want to deliver a truly democratic mayor with real powers, the person holding this position must have a level of influence and clout that other elected TDs, councillors and Senators do not have. Such a person would be a good ambassador for the city. The power and prestige of the position makes it extremely suitable for the elected mayor to be a champion for the delivery of tourism, as referred to in the proposed new subsection (7).
The amendment, in the proposed new subsection (8), refers to "the organisation and chairing of the joint policing committee". While we understand that this may reluctantly remove a power from local councillors, it is thought that the role of chairperson of the Limerick City and County Council joint policing committee is a power that should rest with the mayor of the entire Limerick city and county area.
The proposed new subsection (9), in referring to "executive powers in the realms of waste management", seeks to give the mayor responsibility for waste management with a specific intention to increase efficiencies in how waste is collected and managed. The CCPC report of 2018, which was commissioned by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, suggested that the current structure is not in the interests of consumers or the environment. Many areas of the city and county have multiple companies servicing streets, sometimes with two or three different lorries in the same street in the one day. For instance, I live in a street with eight houses and we have four collectors of waste. It is not efficient. This is an opportunity to give the mayor a tangible success in his or her first term that is in the interests of the people of Limerick.
The proposed new subsection (10) provides that the mayor "shall have executive powers for public realm improvements including disused and unused public spaces". It is crucial to the success of the directly elected mayor project that the mayor will have sufficient powers to nullify any concerns that this will be just a ribbon-cutting position. We must get rid of the concern that is out there. Decision-making around the use of public spaces is an area of significant powers.
The amendment provides in the proposed new subsection (11) that the mayor will "have oversight with regards to the implementation of the Limerick Regeneration projects, and any subsequent regeneration programmes, and shall produce an annual report to be delivered to councillors regarding the status of the regeneration programmes". We have included this provision because regeneration in Limerick has been a mixed bag. In some ways it has failed and in other ways it has been crucial in enhancing areas that were most impacted by the violent feuds of the 2000s. There have been successes and failures across all three pillars of the regeneration programme. Although it is fair to say that most areas are better for the involvement of regeneration schemes, regeneration is not just about bricks and mortar - it is also about social inclusion and community participation. It is crucial that any future regeneration funds and schemes are directed to the areas where they are most needed. Giving control of this to a Limerick-based elected mayor will enhance the probability that these resources are delivered to the areas that need them most. Regeneration has been, and continues to be, extremely important. Many of areas most impacted have now flourished and have thriving communities, although due to cuts in funding and the failure to deliver on the ambitions of the original plan, there remains a need for a continued focus on these areas. Giving the mayor an oversight position on this important project and its successors would ensure that this implementation remains front and centre of any future plans for Limerick. While regeneration has failed in some aspects, there are other aspects that could count as success. The implementation plan was key to that. The AILG has argued that any successor plan should be established under the devolved power of a democratically elected mayor.
Finally, the amendment provides in the proposed new subsection (12) that the "Mayoral role shall, subject to section 213 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, incorporate executive functions from the Chief Executive the realms of land acquisition, with all purchases being subject to ratification by Limerick City and County Council". I reiterate it is important the position of mayor is not a ribbon-cutting ceremonial role. It is really important.
It is almost five years since the people of Limerick voted in the plebiscite. After such a wait, it was extremely disappointing to see the Bill as initiated. I am not sure why it took so long to come up with a Bill that provides the mayor with little or no power. Providing the mayor with power to acquire land would go some way towards addressing the absence of real powers contained within the Bill as initiated. I have made most of these comments on Committee Stage but I believe we still have to push this.
I agree quite a bit with the spirit of the amendment. It speaks to what we envisaged at the outset when we considered what this new office was going to be for Limerick on foot of the plebiscite. I reiterate that Limerick alone opted to have a directly elected mayor, whereas Cork and Waterford, which also had the opportunity, chose not to pursue this possibility. Limerick did so on the basis of quite little information. There was a notion at the time of what a directly elected mayor would be. The Minister of State's predecessor in office, the former Minister of State, Deputy John Paul Phelan, set out how he saw the role. It was very broad. Certainly, there was not much detail back then. We have come a long way.
I commend the Minister of State on bringing the Bill to this point and narrowing it down to what it is. It certainly is not something we all agree with. We had a debate on Committee Stage and the Minister of State defended his position on the Bill quite well. It is a good step in the right direction. I have moved my position on it. At the outset I would have wanted this Bill to give a lot of power to the new mayor in Limerick, whoever that might be. The combination of the work of the implementation advisory group, the work of the Ministers and his officials, and the work of Oireachtas Members has got us to this point where we have quite a good Bill. I am very happy. I believe it was my suggestion at an early stage that we would have a review process built into the Bill.
While there is much to be looked at in Deputy Quinlivan's amendments, I believe they fall into the review process which we will have after three years. I see some conflict between what Deputy Quinlivan would like the mayor to do and national policy. I am not sure how that would be managed if this amendment is accepted, particularly in the area of waste management. That is a very complex one to get right and needs to be considered very carefully.
By and large, how the office is set up now, as set out in the legislation, gets the balance right. A lot of the intent of amendment No. 9 will be captured in the final reckoning. I would like to say that I agree with much of the spirit of amendment No. 9 but will not be supporting it.
I was going to say that I too wish to speak in favour of amendment No. 9, but I am not quite clear whether Deputy Leddin has spoken in favour of the amendment or against it. In any event, I believe it is an important amendment. Unlike Deputies Leddin and Quinlivan, I do not live in Limerick and did not vote in the Limerick plebiscite, but I have an interest in Limerick. I grew up 20 miles from Limerick and would go into Star Discs on Patrick Street in the city every Saturday morning. There were a lot more shops in Patrick Street then than there are now. I have seen many changes in Limerick since that time, particularly along the route I would take coming in from Clare coming through Athlunkard Street. Sir Harry's Mall was an ancient thoroughfare going back to the Treaty of Limerick and the defence of the walls. Somebody, in their wisdom, decided to give planning permission for a hotel to be built across it. This was after they had built a motorway through the centre of medieval Limerick. Now they are pedestrianising O'Connell Street, which is a Georgian thoroughfare with wide streets that can accommodate traffic, as the destruction of the medieval city continues.
It seems to me that what this amendment proposes is somewhat similar to what I am proposing in some of my amendments. It is not grouped with my amendments but they essentially deal with similar issues.
The powers set out in Schedules 1 and 2 are the nitty-gritty and nuts and bolts of it. People voted, if my recollection is correct, on a directly elected mayor of Limerick that would have executive powers. They would be strong executive powers. That was the feeling people had. People do not want another stuffed duck on the mantlepiece. We have enough of them in Irish life and we have all sorts of ceremonial roles. Arguably, the role of a TD has become almost entirely ceremonial rather than being able to effect change through the legislative process. If we set up a mayor of Limerick and do not give him or her at least the powers the existing mayor has and most of the executive powers of the current CEOs, it will inevitably fail. It will be yet another chain-wearer racking up air miles. What will they do? Will they go off to COP29 and represent Limerick there?
The idea is you elect somebody to do a job, give them the powers to do it and if you do not like how they do it, you turf them out. You cannot get rid of county managers, directors of services or most of the Civil Service. Maybe that is a good thing but at some level there has to be somebody with the power to make decisions that positively affect people’s lives . If that power is taken away, first, there will be candidates running who are not terribly interested in improving people’s lives and, second, people will not be remotely interested in electing somebody because they know they have five or six councillors in their municipal district and a mayor of Limerick who was asked and said, “I’ll do nothing for you.”
I congratulate the Minister of State on all the work he has done to being the Bill to fruition. One might ask why more work was not done earlier but I certainly cannot lay that fault at the Minister of State’s door.
The idea is we will have a review in three years. I have been around one term before this one. I have heard of many reviews but have never seen one lead to substantial change. If we are to make the radical departure of a directly elected mayor, let us make it, give the person power, attract the best person for the job, give them to power to do it and, if they do not, make it better. As it stands, it seems to me we are giving them very few powers.
The reservation one might have concerns the purchase of lands but I accept Deputy Quinlivan’s rationale for that, and, in particular, the safeguard that it would have to be ratified by the elected members, which is important. I see no reason not to adopt this. We are saying the mayor of Limerick should be a full-time position but what powers do they have that require them to be full-time? I appreciate I am talking about Sinn Féin's previous amendment but the spirit of the legislation the Minister of State brought forward suggests much employment might be precluded from the mayor. The powers the mayor has under the Bill, if not amended, would not require anybody’s full-time attention. That is a pity and would be a missed opportunity. I commend the amendment.
Before the Minister of State comes in, Deputy Leddin's amendment was grouped with this one. I read out that amendments Nos. 9 and 22 are grouped, and amendment No. 22 is in his name.
Can I speak to amendment No. 22 then?
You have already spoken but you will get a chance to come back in after this.
Amendment No. 9 aims to include further functions for the mayor. New subsection (6) proposes the mayor have an ambassadorial role in promotion and delivery of the living wage in business in Limerick. As I outlined on Committee Stage, the Government has committed to progress to a national living wage by 2026 by incremental increases of the national minimum wage, which has a statutory basis. As part of budget 2024, the Government has increased the national minimum wage to €12.70 per hour from 1 January, a 12.4% increase. The national minimum wage will be retitled the national living wage when the threshold of 60% of the median wage is reached. As this work is well progressed, there should not be a need for an ambassadorial role in promoting and delivering it. Therefore, I do not think it appropriate to include this provision.
New subsection (7) proposes a role for the mayor in the promotion and delivery of Limerick as a tourist destination. This is a well-intentioned proposal. Through the concerted efforts of many, Limerick is at last assuming its proper place on the national and international stage as a tourist destination. One of the functions of the Limerick mayor implementation advisory committee, chaired by the mayor, will be to promote foster and support economic, touristic, social and culture activities in Limerick. Therefore, the aim of the amendment is provided for in the Bill.
New subsection (8) proposes the mayor have a role in organising and chairing the joint policing committees. The Policing, Security and Community Safety Bill 2023 brought forward by the Minister for Justice has passed through this House and is before the Seanad. Under its provisions, the JPCs will be stood down next June and replaced by new entities. I am on public record as being in favour and supportive of a chairing role for the mayor in the new local community safety partnerships. I feel strongly about this. The Department of Justice is reviewing the operation of the pilot safety partnership in Longford, Waterford and Dublin's north inner city, including the most appropriate provision to appoint chairs of partnerships.
New subsection (9) proposes executive powers for the mayor in waste management. The general scheme of the Bill provided all executive functions under the Waste Management Act 1996 and EU legislation would be retained by the director general. It is already provided for in the Bill with my amendment to Part 2 of Schedule 2 to make complete provision. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendment. Preparing a waste management plan is a statutory requirement under EU regulations. It was previously a reserved function and became an executive function under the Waste Management Act. Since then, waste management plans have been adopted on a regional basis to include the entire country. In 2021, it was agreed the regions would prepare a single national waste management plan for a circular economy. The plan will be made early next year. These measures have allowed Ireland to meet its binding requirements for waste management plans under Article 28 of the waste framework directive.
New subsection (10) proposes executive powers for the mayor in public realm improvements, including disused and unused public spaces. The planning Act does not specify public realm improvement development types. It does provide that local authority works are exempt from planning permission. However, certain development types require that local authorities comply with the process under section 179 of the planning Act. This is a reserved function of the elected members. The Bill does not create new functions relating to development consent, nor does it remove reserved functions from the elected members. Deputy Quinlivan’s contribution on this subsection on Committee Stage envisaged a place-making role for the mayor. I am confident everything I have done supports a placemaker role so I cannot accept the amendment.
New subsection (11) proposes the mayor shall have oversight of Limerick regeneration. I accept Deputy Quinlivan’s bona fides in this area. The Bill provides structures to achieve this, as the Limerick mayoral advice implementation committee will have a particular focus on this. I appreciate the spirit of the amendment but believe it duplicates what is in the Bill.
New subsection (12) proposes the Bill will have a role in land acquisition subject to application to the council. The Bill envisages a mayoral role in acquisition for the performance function of the local authority. However, under section 213 of the planning Act, this is an executive function and does not require a resolution of elected members. The Bill does not modify a reserved elected function. Therefore, the amendment cannot be accepted.
I will make a general point. I have gone back to look at what was put to the people of Limerick by way of plebiscite. Everything put to them is in the Bill, something I am wedded to as a democrat. Everything the people voted on is in the Bill. The plebiscite was upfront with people on what would stay with the CEO, now the DG, and what would go to the mayor. That is something I feel strongly about. We have to be true to what the people voted for.
Amendment No. 22 proposes that, where a mayor has delegated a function, the delegation is deemed revoked upon the election of a new mayor. In this area, the Bill is clear. Each mayor may make a decision to delegate functions or not, or to revoke or amend any such delegation made. In all cases, the power of functions continues to invest in the mayor and is performable by him or her. The director general carries out any delegated functions under the general superintendence of the mayor. As each mayor takes up office, delegation orders made previously would fall. The essence of what the amendment seeks to achieve is implicit in the Bill. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary. I take the import of what is sought but it is something we looked at in great depth.
A technical issue with the amendment is it does not align with the existing provisions of the Bill, which distinguish between when the mayor is elected and when the mayor takes up office. These are different days. That is the technical point but the general point is we believe it is already provided for in the Bill. The amendment is well intentioned.
I am not of a mind to accept either amendment No. 9 or amendment No. 22.
I will give Deputy Leddin some latitude because there was a mutual misunderstanding.
I will not need much latitude. I accept that the Minister of State has looked at this closely with his team. It was an attempt to make sure that the delegation of the previous mayor would not carry through automatically to the next mayor. The Minister of State has satisfactorily explained that this would not be the case. I accept his explanation and thank him for it.
Does the Minister of State want to come back in? No. How stands amendment No. 9?
It is being pressed.
Amendment put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 51; Níl, 68; Staon, 0.
Tá
- Andrews, Chris.
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Barry, Mick.
- Berry, Cathal.
- Brady, John.
- Browne, Martin.
- Cairns, Holly.
- Carthy, Matt.
- Clarke, Sorca.
- Collins, Joan.
- Conway-Walsh, Rose.
- Cronin, Réada.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Cullinane, David.
- Daly, Pa.
- Donnelly, Paul.
- Ellis, Dessie.
- Farrell, Mairéad.
- Gannon, Gary.
- Guirke, Johnny.
- Harkin, Marian.
- Kenny, Gino.
- Kenny, Martin.
- Kerrane, Claire.
- Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
- McNamara, Michael.
- Mitchell, Denise.
- Munster, Imelda.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Murphy, Paul.
- Mythen, Johnny.
- Nash, Ged.
- Nolan, Carol.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Reilly, Louise.
- O'Rourke, Darren.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
- Ó Laoghaire, Donnchadh.
- Ó Murchú, Ruairí.
- Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- Pringle, Thomas.
- Quinlivan, Maurice.
- Ryan, Patricia.
- Shanahan, Matt.
- Sherlock, Sean.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stanley, Brian.
- Tóibín, Peadar.
- Tully, Pauline.
- Wynne, Violet-Anne.
Níl
- Browne, James.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Colm.
- Butler, Mary.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Cannon, Ciarán.
- Carroll MacNeill, Jennifer.
- Chambers, Jack.
- Collins, Niall.
- Costello, Patrick.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Cowen, Barry.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowe, Cathal.
- Devlin, Cormac.
- Dillon, Alan.
- Donnelly, Stephen.
- Donohoe, Paschal.
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Farrell, Alan.
- Feighan, Frankie.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harris, Simon.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Heydon, Martin.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Humphreys, Heather.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Lahart, John.
- Lawless, James.
- Leddin, Brian.
- Madigan, Josepha.
- Martin, Catherine.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- McEntee, Helen.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McHugh, Joe.
- Moynihan, Aindrias.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Murnane O'Connor, Jennifer.
- Naughton, Hildegarde.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
- O'Brien, Darragh.
- O'Brien, Joe.
- O'Callaghan, Jim.
- O'Connor, James.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
- O'Donovan, Patrick.
- O'Dowd, Fergus.
- O'Gorman, Roderic.
- O'Sullivan, Christopher.
- O'Sullivan, Pádraig.
- Ó Cathasaigh, Marc.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Phelan, John Paul.
- Rabbitte, Anne.
- Ring, Michael.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smyth, Niamh.
- Smyth, Ossian.
- Stanton, David.
Staon
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Denise Mitchell and Maurice Quinlivan; Níl, Deputies Hildegarde Naughton and Cormac Devlin.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 not moved.
Amendment No. 12 arises out of committee proceedings. Amendments Nos. 12 to 15, inclusive, and 97 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment no. 12:
In page 15, line 23, to delete “The director general” and substitute “The Mayor in consultation with the director general”.
The rationale for this amendment is that on Second Stage, our party leader, Deputy Bacik, quoted from an editorial by our colleague, Limerick City Councillor, Connor Sheehan, who argued that this legislation must create a real and substantive role for a directly elected mayor. While we are all grateful to the public servants who work in local authorities and elsewhere, the role of mayor is a political role. That is the justification.
There is a fundamental question about where the balance lies in the local authority between the mayor, in selecting his or her team, and the director general, and who has the dominant power. Amendment No. 15 is in my name. On Committee Stage, the Minister indicated that he felt the director general should have that power and that any powers relating to the human resources function would rest with the director general. That has been understood. I acknowledge Deputy Sherlock's point that this is a political position. It has always been said that any appointment of personnel would rest with the director general.
My feeling, to speak to Deputy Sherlock's point, has always been that this is a political position. When the people voted, they did so on the understanding that the mayor would be able to assemble his or her own team. I am happy with the balance that has been struck - this is what I argued for on Committee Stage - to provide that the director general will appoint his or her team in consultation with the mayor. The Minister has amended it slightly to say "after consultation with the mayor." I think that is acceptable. I know there is an important nuance there.
I think the Minister of State will know more than anybody the reality that a Minister and their Secretary General have to work together. It simply does not work unless there is a relationship between the Minister and the Secretary General. If there is not, it is a bad situation. I think what will happen in reality is that the mayor, who has been given the mandate by the people of Limerick, will set out their programme. They will indicate what their priorities will be during the year and the term ahead. The director general is mandated to work with the mayor in that regard. Consistent with how this House has always worked, and it does work effectively, it is the director general who has that corporate and legal responsibility in the appointment of personnel. That is what has been achieved here. I think the mayor will have and should have an influence, and that is critically important. The mayor does have an influence and, with respect, has maximum control over the appointment of his or her special adviser, just as a Minister in this House would. I think the balance has been struck. I do not foresee a situation where the people of Limerick will elect a mayor who has a hostile relationship with the director general, and nor do I envisage a situation whereby a director general will have a hostile relationship with the mayor who has been elected. Those of us in Limerick will know about the good relations between the political side of the house and the executive. It is to Limerick's great benefit and I think that will continue with this new office.
I note this was discussed on Committee Stage, and I note there are other amendments on it. What I see being proposed is that the mayor will be consulted about the appointment of staff. In my opinion that is not good enough. Given that the mayor is supposed to have an independent role, they need to be able to select their own staff, and not have their staff imposed on them by anybody. At the end of the day, it is the mayor's programme for office that will be judged at the end of the five-year term. A mayor's staff will play a huge role in the programme. We will press the amendment.
I will say the same thing as I said at the committee. When the new mayor is elected, he or she will have his or her own adviser. That is in legislation. However, the other four staff members will be existing staff members of the council. I do not have a problem with that. I have a problem if someone transfers over and automatically becomes the director general, which is what is going to happen here . I mean no disrespect to the current CEO or any of the staff when I say that. When we are setting up a role that is supposed to be independent, it is crucial that the mayor is in a position to hire their own staff. That is why the change from director general to mayor is such an important part of the legislation.
We can look at the entire Bill with the view that the role being created is simply not strong enough. It is unthinkable that the mayor would not be able to appoint their own staff in their own office. I cannot think you would have a directly elected mayor in other jurisdictions with legislative provisions like this. Maybe the Minister of State will tell us what other countries have these sorts of arrangements in place. That would be useful.
I agree with the amendment. With regard to Deputy Leddin's point, you are kind of hoping that the people of Limerick will elect someone who will agree with the director general now and forever. The people of Limerick, and of other areas if this is expanded, have the right to elect whoever they want. They may elect someone who has a fundamental clash with a future hypothetical director general. The idea that the democratic will of the people could effectively be overridden by a director general who completely ties the hands of the elected mayor by appointing staff whose job is to block the mayor from doing what he or she has a mandate to do is completely unacceptable. It makes a bit of a joke of the idea of electing a mayor if the unelected person still gets to appoint the mayor's staff.
Amendment No. 14 relates to the assignment of staff to the office of mayor. I note that Deputies Bacik and Leddin have tabled similar amendments, Nos. 12 and 15. The appointment of staff to the office of mayor was the subject of much debate on Second Stage and Committee Stage. The Bill, as published, provides that the director general will appoint the office staff in line with their responsibility for staffing matters. That is what was put to the people at the plebiscite. I am conscious that there are large numbers of staff working in the local authority who provide a huge variety of skill sets. In my short time in the role of Minister of State, I could not have functioned without the skill sets of the existing staff in the Department of housing, and in particular the Department of local government. It is a collaborative approach.
I have carefully considered the views expressed by Members. I believe it is critically important to have a well-functioning mayoral office from the outset. I am now providing that the mayor will be consulted on the appointment of office staff. The way this will work in practical terms is that the staff will come from within the local authority. We must have a situation where there is cohesion and there are people with experience of how the local authority functions. Ultimately, no staff will be appointed without the mayor being consulted and being comfortable with the staff in question. If you ask any Minister or Minister of State, that is the situation. We have to have a working model as well. I am confident this will not unduly impinge upon the director general's staffing functions, which will remain unchanged. This amendment places a consultation which is likely to take place on a statutory footing. It will happen anyway, but we have now put it on a statutory footing. The staff in the mayor's office will be put in place after consultation. In practical terms, I expect that a call will go into the local authority in the normal way, and the mayor will interview the staff, along with either the director general or the head of human resources. You want a combination of skill sets.
Amendment No. 13, in the name of Deputy Quinlivan, proposes that the mayor will have sole responsibility for staffing the mayoral office without the involvement of the director general. As I noted on Committee Stage, a fundamental tenet of the legislation - more particularly, this is what was put to the people by way of democratic plebiscite, this is what they voted on, this is the Government's policy proposal and this was recommended by the independent advisory group report - is that the director general will have responsibility for the day-to-day operation of the local authority, and specifically for staffing matters. I am also conscious of the existing staff in the local authority, as I expect are all other Members of the House.
Amendment No. 97, in the name of Deputy Leddin, who is along with Deputy Quinlivan my colleague from Limerick, seeks to amend section 154 of the 2001 Act dealing with delegated functions in a local authority.
This amendment would require the director general, when delegating functions to staff within the council, to consult the mayor to ensure each delegated function is adequately staffed in order to further the objectives of the mayoral programme. As has been well discussed, the management and delegation of staff and resources in the council is a function of the director general, as put to the people by way of plebiscite. We need to respect the proposal for which they voted. While I have acknowledged in my amendment No. 14 the unique circumstances regarding the assignment of staff, the other amendments in the group are not in keeping with what the people voted for and are not appropriate at this time. On that basis, I am not minded to accept them.
The Minister of State seems to be trying to confuse people. We are saying the director general will have a full role in hiring people and managing human resources but not in respect of the mayor's team. We are not talking about any other positions. We have put on record clearly what we are proposing. A new mayor should be able to hire his or her team. There are good staff in the council and the mayor would be selecting team members from existing council personnel. It is important to put that on the record. The Minister of State seems to be talking about a different referendum from the one we were involved in and in which people voted. A former Minister of State in the previous Government, Deputy Phelan, said we are looking at a very significant reform of local government, with the granting of enhanced powers. We do not see any enhanced powers in the Bill. That is why we have concerns and why we have pressed two amendments to votes. We have the same concerns in respect of the provisions we are discussing in this group. The new mayor needs to be able to select his or her team. The appointment of a special adviser is done differently, as will be legislated for, and the four other staff members will be existing council staff, who apply for the role, whom the mayor selects.
We could argue that the mayor will be spanceled before he or she ever receives a mandate. Let us call a spade a spade. Limerick politics are cut and thrust; they are pugilistic betimes, no more than in any other city in Ireland. The idea that there will be a wonderfully seamless relationship between the director general and the mayor of the city is a bit naive and we are not buying it. A good mayor will punch back, and I mean that in the most respectful way and in the spirit of Limerick politics.
There is an overcautiousness in this legislation towards the rebalancing of powers in favour of elected representatives. That is the bottom line. Let us call a spade a spade. If we are to be realistic in terms of giving people in cities like Limerick real representative power, we must move that power away from the Civil Service, notwithstanding the professionalism of its staff, the advice they will give through the director general and the assignment of some of those staff to the mayor's team. Dare I say it, it is slightly misguided and overcautious not to give the mayor of the day real power.
I agree with the sentiment expressed by Deputy Sherlock regarding overcautiousness, although I would say it is cautiousness. We cannot necessarily say at this point that it is overcautiousness because we are moving into somewhat uncharted territory. We have to respect that. The review mechanism after three years, notwithstanding Deputy McNamara's scepticism, is useful. In my short time in this House, I have seen reviews go through and be very effective. The review mechanism here is a very valid one. A debate should happen again in another three years in respect of the balance of power between the mayor and the director general.
My amendment No. 97 is included in this group. It is about giving the mayor an influence in the selection of the executive team in the local authority. I accept the Minister of State is not going there at this time but it is something we should look to improve, if required, after three years. There will be an interesting few years between next June and June 2027. We could be having a very different debate at the end of that period. Perhaps the Minister of State and I will be proved wrong, or maybe not. I hope we have a very successful inaugural mayor of Limerick city and county who drives forward, not just Limerick, but the whole mid-west region. I would like to think we will be on our way in three years to achieving the vision many of us have of our part of Ireland becoming a counterbalance to the hegemony of the east coast.
This is a discussion about whether a mayor who is directly elected by the people of Limerick will be able to appoint the staff in his or her immediate office. We are talking about five staff. There is no city anywhere in the world in which the directly elected mayor cannot appoint his or her own staff. The norm is that directly elected mayors are responsible for the appointment and management of all staff in the entire local authority area or city of which they are the mayor. This is a discussion about the five staff in the office of the mayor of Limerick. It is not about being cautious or overcautious. It is the absolute height of conservatism that we are even discussing whether a directly elected mayor may appoint the staff in his or her own office without the permission of or consultation with the director general. It is off the charts that this discussion is even taking place. The approach to this is highly conservative. The Bill needs to go way further in many directions but the fact the Government will not budge on this very confined issue of a directly elected mayor appointing his or her own staff without having to consult is incredibly regressive. It is great if there are great relationships but, in fact, any directly elected mayor worth his or her salt, no matter how well he or she gets on with people, will fight the corner for the people of the city or county and, therefore, there will be friction. Not to allow the mayor a free hand in appointing the staff in his or her own immediate office is highly regressive.
I note the points Members have made. I have a few observations to make. When I came into this role, I had to look at a body of legislation that was not only around the legal form but also required a consideration of whether it would work in practice. I have been very honest in that. There are five staff, one of whom, the special adviser, is directly appointed by the mayor. The draft legislation I took on had it that the staff in the mayor's office would be appointed by the director general. I took on board the points made by Members, which were very valid. The point was always put to the public that the staff would remain the remit of the director general. Even if part of that was not put into legislation, we could not have a situation whereby staff could be appointed to a mayor's office without the mayor being consulted and without, in effect, the approval of the mayor.
It is a balancing act. Deputy Leddin made a fine point in this regard. I specifically put in the three-year review because we are on a voyage here. I am also conscious that we had a situation in Limerick where 52% of people voted for the proposal and 48% voted against. In the two other local authorities where there was a plebiscite, Waterford and Cork, the voters went 51% to 49% against what was proposed. We have to bring people with us. Members can describe what I have put in the legislation as they wish but it is a practical measure that will ensure that any staff appointments to the mayor's office do not happen without the mayor being involved. That is a reasonable position. Deputy O'Callaghan made reference to what is done in other countries. That is not what was put to the people. I must respect what was put to the people and I have been honest about that. On that basis, I cannot accept the amendments.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 15, line 23, to delete “director general” and substitute “Mayor”.
Amendment put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 48; Níl, 68; Staon, 0.
Tá
- Andrews, Chris.
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Barry, Mick.
- Boyd Barrett, Richard.
- Brady, John.
- Browne, Martin.
- Cairns, Holly.
- Clarke, Sorca.
- Collins, Joan.
- Cronin, Réada.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Cullinane, David.
- Daly, Pa.
- Doherty, Pearse.
- Donnelly, Paul.
- Ellis, Dessie.
- Farrell, Mairéad.
- Gannon, Gary.
- Guirke, Johnny.
- Harkin, Marian.
- Kenny, Martin.
- Kerrane, Claire.
- Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
- Mitchell, Denise.
- Munster, Imelda.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Murphy, Paul.
- Mythen, Johnny.
- Nash, Ged.
- Nolan, Carol.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- O'Reilly, Louise.
- O'Rourke, Darren.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
- Ó Laoghaire, Donnchadh.
- Ó Murchú, Ruairí.
- Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- Pringle, Thomas.
- Quinlivan, Maurice.
- Ryan, Patricia.
- Sherlock, Sean.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stanley, Brian.
- Tóibín, Peadar.
- Tully, Pauline.
- Wynne, Violet-Anne.
Níl
- Browne, James.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Colm.
- Butler, Mary.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Cahill, Jackie.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Cannon, Ciarán.
- Carroll MacNeill, Jennifer.
- Chambers, Jack.
- Collins, Niall.
- Costello, Patrick.
- Cowen, Barry.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowe, Cathal.
- Devlin, Cormac.
- Dillon, Alan.
- Donnelly, Stephen.
- Donohoe, Paschal.
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Farrell, Alan.
- Feighan, Frankie.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harris, Simon.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Heydon, Martin.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Humphreys, Heather.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Lahart, John.
- Lawless, James.
- Leddin, Brian.
- Madigan, Josepha.
- Martin, Catherine.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- McConalogue, Charlie.
- McEntee, Helen.
- McHugh, Joe.
- Moynihan, Aindrias.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Murnane O'Connor, Jennifer.
- Naughton, Hildegarde.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
- O'Brien, Darragh.
- O'Brien, Joe.
- O'Callaghan, Jim.
- O'Connor, James.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
- O'Donovan, Patrick.
- O'Dowd, Fergus.
- O'Gorman, Roderic.
- O'Sullivan, Christopher.
- O'Sullivan, Pádraig.
- Ó Cathasaigh, Marc.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Phelan, John Paul.
- Rabbitte, Anne.
- Ring, Michael.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smyth, Niamh.
- Smyth, Ossian.
- Stanton, David.
Staon
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Denise Mitchell and Maurice Quinlivan; Níl, Deputies Hildegarde Naughton and Cormac Devlin.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 15, line 23, after “general” to insert “, after consultation with the Mayor,”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 15 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 16, 76, 88 to 90, inclusive, and 99 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 16, to delete lines 14 to 20 and substitute the following:
“(a) in section 13—
(i) by the insertion, after subsection (1), of the following subsections:
“(1A) Subject to subsection (2), a person to whom subsection (1) applies, other than a person referred to in paragraph (b) or (e) of that subsection, is disqualified from being elected to the office of Mayor of Limerick.
(1B) Subject to subsection (2), a person to whom subsection (1) applies is disqualified from holding the office of Mayor of Limerick.”,
and
(ii) in subsection (2)—
(I) by the substitution, in paragraph (a), of “subsection (1), (1A) or (1B) in respect of a person to whom subsection (1)(k) applies” for “subsection (1)(k)”,
(II) by the substitution, in paragraph (b), of “subsection (1), (1A) or (1B) in respect of a person to whom subsection (1)(l) applies” for “subsection (1)(l)”, and
(III) by the substitution, in paragraph (c), of “subsection (1), (1A) or (1B) in respect of a person to whom subsection (1)(m) applies” for “subsection (1)(m)”,”.
These are all minor, typographical or consequential amendments. I propose to address each one briefly.
Amendments Nos. 16 and 88 are consequential amendments to the Committee Stage amendment made to section 20. That Committee Stage amendment to section 20 amends sections 13 and 13A of the Local Government Act 2001 to provide that Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas and of the European Parliament may stand for election to the office of mayor of Limerick but are disqualified from holding that office unless they cease their membership in the Houses of the Oireachtas or the European Parliament as the case may be.
Amendment No. 16 provides for a consequential amendment required to section 13(2) of the principal Act. The provisions in subsection (2), paragraphs (a) to (c) set the commencement day and the duration of the disqualification under each of the paragraphs (k) to (m) of subsection (1) of section 13. The amendment applies these same provisions to a disqualification arising under new subsections (1A) and (1B) where that disqualification arises under the criteria of (1)(k), (1)(l), or (1)(m).
Amendment No. 88 provides for the deletion of "as applied and modified by Schedule 3" to be deleted from paragraph 3 of Schedule 2.
Amendment No. 76 is a technical amendment required to insert a missing “and” in section 62(8) to ensure the report with the final recommendation of a panel is both delivered to the Minister and copied to the mayor and the príomh chomhairleoir.
Amendment No. 99 is a consequential amendment arising from amendments made on Dáil Committee Stage to the modification of section 174 in Schedule 3. It relates to Amendment No. 79 that is being discussed in a later grouping. That amendment removes the reference to subsection (7) of section 174 as this already applies to the príomh chomhairleoir by virtue of the modification made in Schedule 3.
However, it is necessary to insert section 174(8) as this includes a function for the príomh chomhairleoir, as a person to whom a matter is brought to attention under section 174(7).
Amendment No. 99 makes the necessary amendment to the chapeau to the modification of section 174 in Schedule 3, which notes that subsection (8) applies to the príomh chomhairleoir.
Amendment No. 89 makes provision for a minor technical amendment to correct a typographical error in paragraph 24(3)(d)(i) of Schedule 2. This subparagraph provides that a returning officer may rule that a nomination paper is invalid by reason of it not having been properly made out. The amendment corrects the possessive "its" rather than "it" as it appears in the published Bill.
Amendment No. 90 makes provision for a minor technical amendment to correct a typographical error in paragraph 51(1) of Chapter 12 of Schedule 2. A cross-reference was omitted in paragraph 51(1) during the publication process of the Bill. A cross-reference to paragraph 50 needs to be reinserted to correct this omission.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendments Nos. 17 to 18.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 16, lines 29 and 30, to delete “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) Act 2023” and substitute “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023”.
Amendment agreed to
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 17, to delete lines 1 to 13.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Amendments Nos. 19 to 21, inclusive, and Nos. 78 to 83, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together. Amendments Nos. 80 to 83, inclusive, are physical alternatives to amendment No. 79.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 17, to delete lines 31 to 35, and in page 18, to delete lines 1 to 19.
Amendment No. 19 essentially proposes the removal the office of príomh chomhairleoir. I alluded to this on Committee Stage and earlier tonight. For the life of me, I cannot understand, given we were promised to have a new mayor who was going to have specific powers, how we will end up in a scenario where some of the powers of the existing mayor of Limerick will be transferred to this new directly elected mayor and others will be retained by a príomh chomhairleoir or speaker. The only rationale I can see for that is a desire to have titles and jobs to give out to people. Yet, the purpose of this Bill, if and when it is enacted, is to create a directly elected mayor who has real powers. This mayor will not even have all the powers held by the existing maor of Limerick or the cathaoirleach of any county council. It sets a horrible precedent.
It also has the ability to create a certain dysfunction at the heart of local government because a speaker or príomh chomhairleoir will have some powers and a mayor will have other powers but all the real powers will reside with the director general. It is fundamentally undemocratic.
Amendment No. 78 is consequential upon amendment No. 19. It takes out the powers the current mayor enjoys that are to be reserved for the príomh chomhairleoir. If the office of príomh chomhairleoir is abolished, so too will be the reserving powers to the holder of that office.
Amendment No. 80 refers to a specific power, which is the power to nominate somebody for civic honours. I am interested in knowing specifically why the Minister of State thinks this new directly elected mayor of Limerick should not be able to nominate somebody for the freedom of Limerick, for example, which is the big honour. If Ireland wins a rugby world cup or if Limerick wins the all-Ireland, although I suspect the latter is more likely in the short term at least-----
The drive is there for five, hopefully.
Yes. If Limerick were to win a fifth all-Ireland, and if the manager of Limerick was not to be the directly elected mayor by the time that happens, it may be the case that the directly elected mayor might want to nominate-----
I think the Deputy should move to Limerick.
I have had an interest in Limerick for all my life. I have never felt the need to hide that, but obviously I do like to see Limerick defeated when they play Clare in hurling matches. Above and beyond that, I am quite a supporter of Limerick.
To go back to more serious points, why should the directly elected mayor, with all the powers he or she will have, not be able to nominate somebody for civic honours? More importantly, amendment No. 81 refers to when a greater additional expenditure was incurred than was envisaged and the CEO has to inform the cathaoirleach of Limerick County Council of that expenditure hastily. That is the status quo. The Minister of State has always said that the new mayor of Limerick will effectively introduce the budget, yet if the budget is breached and additional expenditure is incurred by the executive, why on earth would the directly elected mayor not be informed of that? The Minister of State is saying that these are circumstances where that power should remain with the príomh chomhairleoir. I do not understand the rationale for it and I welcome an explanation. On Committee Stage, we did not quite get down to discussing that.
Last, amendments Nos. 82 and 83 relate to a potential conflict of interest where the county manager, as he or she once was, the CEO as he or she is now, and the director general as he or she will become. Where he or she has a conflict of interest with regard to something that is being discussed or where another member of staff has a conflict of interest, essentially, he or she has to inform the chief executive of that. However, in the future, he or she will have to inform the príomh chomhairleoir rather than the mayor. Again, we are questioning what the rationale for that is. There is no obvious rationale for any of those very specific powers that have been reserved. I look forward to the Minister of State's explanation as to why he thinks these powers should not be given to a new directly elected mayor of Limerick and should instead remain with a príomh chomhairleoir. Could he address the issue of the príomh chomhairleoir and a conflict of powers between the two?
To make things easier for the Minister of State, we will withdraw amendments Nos. 20 and 21, following the clarification we received from him on Committee Stage.
I propose to address amendment No. 19. I will obviously now not address amendments Nos. 20 or 21. I thank Deputies Quinlivan and Mitchell for that. Amendments Nos. 78 to 83, inclusive, have been grouped together.
I want to take the opportunity to mention a number of fundamental tenets of the legislation. These reflect key aspects of the proposal put to the Limerick people in the plebiscite, the recommendations of the independent advisory group report and as were set out in the General Scheme, from which this Bill has been developed.
Limerick will have a directly elected mayor with executive functions. When the mayor takes up office the functions of the chief executive, with certain exceptions, will transfer to the mayor. The role will have a strategic focus and involve additional functions outlined in the legislation. The mayor will be an ex officio member of the council with the same voting rights, responsibility and duties of elected members. The mayor will also take on the functions, including the representational and civic functions, of the cathaoirleach outside of the council chamber.
Limerick will also have a director general, formerly the chief executive officer, with the primary role of supporting the mayor in his or her role in the effective administration and the general day to day operational running of the authority. As put to the people in the plebiscite, the director general will have responsibility as the Accounting Officer, for HR and staffing matters, for the administration of individual schemes and allocation of individual grants along with enforcement and compliance matters and legal proceedings relating to same.
The elected council, which also has a direct mandate from the people, will retain its primacy. The elected council has reserved functions and these will not change. The council will have a governance role in the performance of the mayor.
These reflect key aspects of the proposal put to the Limerick people in the plebiscite and the recommendations of the independent advisory group report as set out in the general scheme from which the Bill has been developed.
Limerick will have a directly elected mayor with executive functions. When a mayor takes up office, the functions of the chief executive, with certain exceptions will transfer to the mayor. The role will have a strategic post involving additional functions outlined in the legislation. The mayor will be an ex officio member of the council with the same voting rights, responsibilities and duties as elected members. The mayor will also take on the functions, including representation of civic functions of the cathaoirleach outside the council chamber. Limerick will have a director general, formerly the chief executive, with the primary role of supporting the mayor in their role in the effective administration and general day-to-day operational running of the authority. Put to the people, the director general will have responsibility as accounting officer for HR and staffing matters, the administration of individual schemes and allocation of individual grants, along with enforcement and compliance matters. The elected council also has a direct mandate from the people and will retain its primacy. That is hugely important in terms of the role of the chamber, mayor and the councillors. The elected council has a reserve function and this will not change. The council has a governance role in the performance of the mayor.
The mayor will be accountable to the elected council for his or her mayoral functions. The director general will also be accountable to the council for the performance of his or her retained functions. The mayor will bring the budget and development plans to the chamber. This is currently done by the CEO, so it is a significant transfer of powers.
As recommended by the implementation and advisory group, IAG, report, the legislation provides that the council will elect a príomh chomhairleoir who will be the chair of the council. As the council has a governance role in relation to the mayor - this is directly from the IAG report - it would not be appropriate for the council to have meetings chaired by the mayor. It ensures the role of chair within the chamber and the elected head of the executive are not vested in one individual and protects the primacy of the council.
The príomh chomhairleoir will act as speaker of the council to ensure the orderly and impartial conduct of business. The role will involve setting the agenda for meetings, allowing motions and maintaining order at meetings. These are core principles which inform the structure of the Bill and where responsible functions for existing provisions in the Local Government Act and other legislation would lie, so as to reflect these new roles.
I will first address amendments Nos. 19 and 78, both of which are in the name of Deputy McNamara. As mentioned, the core principle of the legislation is that the council will elect the príomh chomhairleoir who will be the chair and speaker of the council. As I noted, this is primarily because the council has a governance role with regard to the mayor and it would not be appropriate for the council to be chaired by the mayor. This was a firm recommendation from the IAG report with which we concur. With these two amendments, the Deputy proposes to fundamentally change this by removing provisions in the Bill for the establishment of the role of príomh chomhairleoir in section 22 and its functions, in section 23 and Part 1 of Schedule 1. It would therefore not be possible to accept them.
Amendment No. 80 relates to section 74 of the principal Act and the awarding of civic honours. This is a reserved function and ultimately a matter for the full council. This section provides that the cathaoirleach may have a role in proposing a person for a civic honour. I have examined all the amendments in great depth. I have also looked at the Local Government Act with my officials. Having listened to the Deputy's point, I will consider bringing forward an amendment on the matter in the Seanad. It is important that the mayor be able to propose the freedom of the city and civic honours. Once again, we are listening. We may not agree on everything but the Deputy makes a valid point with this amendment.
Amendment No. 81 relates to section 104 of the principal Act and sets out the circumstances in which a local authority may exceed the budgetary provisions adopted. In such circumstances the authorisation of the elected council is necessary. The council has supremacy insofar as that is a reserved function. It has to work in practice. We are at all times considering how we can bring an added value with the mayor. This section sets out that the local authority may exceed the budget in such circumstances as the authorisation of the elected councillors is necessary except in certain limited cases such as an emergency. In those limited cases, any additional expenditure incurred must be brought to the notice of the cathaoirleach of the elected council. The role of the cathaoirleach here is as leader-speaker of the elected council. Therefore, in the new structure in Limerick after the mayoral election, it is appropriate that should circumstances arise where excess expenditure is incurred, it should be brought to the attention of the príomh chomhairleoir and the council members.
With regard to the structure of the Bill, it is designed such that some of the functions will stay with the CEO - the director general - while others will go to the mayor. The director general and mayor are responsible for these functions directly to the council chamber. That is the basis of this legislation. As I said, the elected council retains primacy as regards the governance, role and performance of the mayor. The mayor will be accountable to the elected council on his or her mayoral executive functions, including the mayor's report and the mayor's questions at plenary council meetings.
The council also has a governance role in relation to the director general in respect of his or her functions. On their respective functions, the mayor and the director general may, up to the limit referred to, incur additional expenditure. The insertion of this section in Schedule 1, Part 2, outlines the director general function in these circumstances. Section 104 of Schedule 3 also outlines the mayoral functions.
I see I am tight on time. Am I at liberty to continue?
The Minister of State will have further time after Deputy McNamara contributes.
I am heartened by the Minister of State's willingness to look at the civic honour reception issue. With regard to the príomh chomhairleoir, the Minister of State's position and my position are clear and we differ, so I do not think we are going to reach common ground on it.
It is still unclear regarding additional expenditure incurred. Given that the mayor is the person introducing the budget, to all intents and purposes, it is his budget. I know the council ultimately passes the budget and it is its budget but while the Dáil passes the Finance Bill, it is still the Minister for Finance's budget. If it goes badly wrong in the course of the year, it is the Minister for Finance who has to come back before the Dáil with an emergency budget to fix it. Presumably, if it goes very badly wrong in Limerick City and County Council, the mayor will come back before it and will have to determine how he proposes to fix it. He will certainly have to fix the hole the following year because he has a five-year term. In those circumstances, it is not clear to me why he does not have to be informed of expenditure over and above that which was planned. Perhaps it should be instead of the príomh chomhairleoir but in addition to the príomh chomhairleoir, at least. I do not understand why he is not to be informed if it is to be his budget, albeit one that is adopted. Whenever I use the word "his" I obviously mean "his or her". I am just making clear that I am not presupposing who is going to be the mayor of Limerick.
I will deal with the other amendments in the limited time I have. Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 both relate to section 178 of the principal Act and the ethics provisions which shall apply to the local government sector. It sets out the actions taken by the chief executive in a matter which the local authority is dealing with and in which there are preliminarily have beneficial interests. They must disclose the interests to the cathaoirleach and they are prohibited from seeking to influence the local authority in consideration of that. In the future, given the council's oversight and the príomh chomhairleoir's role as leader, it would be appropriate for the director general to disclose the interests and, if necessary, to delegate the matter to the príomh chomhairleoir. I should mention that the modifications in section 178 in Schedule 3 also ensure that this section applies the same requirements to the mayor.
Amendment No. 79 is consequential arising out of the amendments made by the Dáil to modify section 174. This amendment removes the reference to section 7 of section 174 and is already applied previously by virtue of modifications. However, it is necessary to insert subsection (8) of section 174 as this includes a function for the príomh chomhairleoir as a person to whom a matter is brought to his or her attention. Subsection (7) relates to amendment No. 99, which has already been discussed in the earlier group and makes a necessary amendment.
In summary, the legislation is drafted such that the director general will be responsible to the chamber and the elected members for the functions that remain with him or her. If they involve additional expenditure, the director general has a responsibility to go to the elected members and the chamber, of which the mayor is a member. It is not as if the mayor will not be told. He or she will be told in the normal way.
Second, if, in the areas that fall under the remit of the mayor, additional expenditure incurred, the mayor will be required to come to the chamber. The mayor is answerable to the chamber. That is hugely important and I think this is a provision the Deputy will like. There are many checks and balances in the legislation and, furthermore, it will be reviewed.
This is very much in keeping with ensuring that whatever responsibilities people have, be it the DG or the mayor, they are responsible at all times to the chamber.
Does Deputy McNamara want a final word on these amendments?
I do not have anything to add.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 20 to 22, inclusive, not moved.
Amendments Nos. 23 and 33 to 35, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 20, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:
“ “Limerick-Shannon metropolitan area transport strategy” means the strategy which sets out the framework for the delivery of the transport system of the Limerick-Shannon metropolitan area;”.
We had this discussion on Committee Stage and I want to have it again with the Minister of State. It merits further discussion. I will not be pressing these amendments, but I submitted them out of a real and genuine concern that by not providing specifically for the Limerick-Shannon metropolitan area transport strategy in this legislation, we weaken the strategy, this Bill and potentially Limerick. For me, LSMATS, as we call it, is an incredibly exciting plan for our city and county and I can safely say, for the mid-west region. It includes a rail link to Shannon Airport. It has provision for new train stations in Moyross, near my home, as well as in Dooradoyle, Ballysimon, Lisnagry, Mungret and Adare. It is genuinely very exciting for our part of the country. It is much more than a transport strategy; it is a development plan for metropolitan Limerick, extending into south-east Clare. There is currently a real misalignment between the transport strategy for the Limerick-Shannon area and the development plans for south-east Clare and Limerick city environs as well. It is a fundamental misalignment. The two documents should speak to each other and they do not.
These amendments are about giving the directly-elected mayor the mandate, the power and indeed the responsibility to pursue delivery of the Limerick-Shannon metropolitan area transport strategy. I understand the Minister of State will not accept these amendments, but he will appreciate the spirit in which they are made because he agrees on the importance of getting our transport strategy right. It is more than simply a transport strategy as it is a development strategy for a fast-growing, thriving, prosperous mid-west region. It would be wrong to narrow it to Limerick as it is really about what I spoke about earlier, namely, providing a counterbalance to the development of the eastern region, which has been at the expense of not just the mid-west, but the southern region, the western region and the north-western region as well. That is why the Limerick-Shannon metropolitan area transport strategy is so fundamentally important and I would like to see it baked into this legislation.
If the Minister of State is minded to look at it again with respect to a Seanad amendment I would certainly appreciate that. If not, we should look to this for the review in three years' time because we must have alignment of the transport strategy of the development plans and we must give the directly-elected mayor the power, the mandate and the responsibility to pursue these as well.
I agree with Deputy Leddin. It is very important and not just to the town of Shannon but obviously to south-east Clare. A bus service has recently been put on between Killaloe and Ennis and I am interested to know exactly what the numbers are because many more people travel from Killaloe to Limerick daily and have done for a very long time. If we are talking about new rail links, there was once a railway station serving Killaloe and Ballina. There was a spur from Birdhill on the Ballina side. Maybe it is just a pipe dream that something like that could be reimagined.
On a more fundamental point, I think most Members in the Chamber believe it is a good idea that this be included. I was a Government backbencher once and I know what it is like, but there is something really wrong with the way we do business in this House if most Members think something is a good idea yet we cannot vote on it or do not want to have a vote on it because the Whips are on and whatever. Would the Government fall if this were included in the Bill? Is that the stuff Governments fall over across Europe? Of course it is not; it is a nonsense and it is a nonsense in this Chamber in 2023. To be very clear, this is not meant as criticism of Deputy Leddin or the Minister of State, but it is a nonsense that this is how we do business in 2023. Everybody thinks something is a good idea but it cannot be really moved or voted on because somebody loses the whip and then people say "Oh my God the Government is going to fall". It is not going to fall on something like this, or I daresay any single amendment in this Bill. Governments do not fall over stuff like that, so why can we not just have a proper debate and proper votes on legislation? That is what we were elected to do. Most people can read and write now. There might have been a time when Members of this House could not read and write, but most people-----
Jesus.
-----can read and write and figure out what their amendments are about and whether they are good or bad for constituents and whether or not they imperil the Government or not. This one does not and it could not possibly. In any event, if the Minister of State is going to look at it further it is a good idea. I am certainly not looking to call votes on it, but sometimes the way we go about our business is frustrating.
I propose to address amendments Nos. 23, 33 to 35, inclusive.
Amendment No. 23 proposes to add a definition in this Part to the Limerick-Shannon metropolitan area transport strategy to allow for Deputy Leddin's other amendments related to the Limerick project 2040 delivery board and associated transport subgroup. We discussed similar amendments to these on Committee Stage. Limerick-Shannon metropolitan area transport strategy is prepared by the National Transport Authority in partnership with Limerick City and County Council, Clare County Council and Transport Infrastructure Ireland with the co-operation of Iarnród Éireann. It was published in December 2022 and is a blueprint for sustainable transport in this area for the next two decades.
Amendments Nos. 33 to 35, inclusive, propose to add reference to the Limerick-Shannon metropolitan area transport strategy, the functional delivery board and the transport subgroup. The amendments would widen the scope of the board to include supporting, co-ordinating and monitoring the implementation of the strategy as well as others including the national development plan, national framework for Limerick city and county and the Limerick-Shannon metropolitan area strategy. The latter is an integrated land use and transport strategy for the metropolitan area that includes on a regional basis the regional spatial and economic strategy.
Both the Limerick-Shannon metropolitan area strategy and the Limerick city and county development plan make reference to the LSMATS. However, the strategy does not have a statutory basis and so does not lend itself to being referenced in legislation. I acknowledge the positive spirit in which the Deputy has brought these amendments and by way of assurance I remind Members the delivery board will enable the mayor to collaborate with key stakeholders to support the implementation of core plans and strategies with a particular focus on the provision of transport infrastructure and services. I highlight that the delivery board subgroup shall meet at least once a year with the Minister. While I cannot accept these amendments I trust the Deputy will agree the provisions of the Bill are robust. I will outline a bit of the thought process. When the legislation came to me there was nothing in it on transport. I made a point of there being a specific section in the Bill, section 34, that directly relates to a transport subgroup being established. I deliberately put the mayor chairing it and on it the DG, the chief executive of Clare County Council and the director of the Southern Regional Assembly. Those were specific decisions I made because of the context of the fact we have a regional focus, which Deputy McNamara spoke to as well.
The functions of that subgroup are very broad. There is an enormous degree of latitude in respect of what that subgroup does. It was not put it in at the time because it was not on a statutory basis. We have had lengthy discussions, including with the Department of Transport. It is a matter into which I have put a lot of work. I very much take on board what Deputy Leddin is looking to achieve. Section 34 is deliberate and wide-ranging. This legislation brings Clare and the Southern Regional Assembly into the overall context. I hope it will cover everything in any plan on transport. At this moment, my views have not changed since Committee Stage.
As for what Deputy McNamara brought up, it was new and I looked at it. It was new on the mayor, the civic and the freedom of the city and so forth. That is where I stand at the moment.
Does Deputy Leddin wish to respond?
I have said what I need to say.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 24 to 28, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 22, lines 2 and 3, to delete "twice in each year at intervals of not less than 5, and not more than 7, months" and substitute "three times in each year at intervals of not more than 4 months".
This amendment changes the numbers of meetings required of the consultative forum. The amendment proposes to delete "twice in each year at intervals of not less than 5, and not more than 7, months" and substitute "three times in each year at intervals of not more than 4 months". This change is to ensure that the mayoral and government consultative forum meets at least three times a year with a view to ensuring greater transparency and regularity in these meetings.
Amendment No. 27 intends to delete "comments and observations" and substitute "comments, observations and potential amendments". This is an important amendment. It is important that with the transition to a democratically elected mayor, our commitment to local democracy and the role of local councillors does not become diluted. As such, it is important that councillors have more opportunity than to just comment and observe within a meeting. To protect local democracy, it is important that the power to table amendments to the programme is considered. That is a really important amendment.
Amendment No. 28 provides that "The Mayor shall, before finalising the Mayoral programme, undertake a process of non-statutory public consultation with the people of Limerick City and County regarding the Mayoral programme.". The reason we have included that amendment is that it gives an opportunity for the electorate to consider a mayoral programme that we believe will enhance local democracy. The mayoral role is an elected role and the request for public consultation reflects the democratic nature of the role. As we said clearly on Committee Stage, we are not looking for statutory consultation but for consultation in which people can get involved in order that we do not have to go through the process required for a statutory consultation.
I will speak to amendments Nos. 25 and 26. Amendment No. 25 relates to the frequency with which the consultative forum shall meet. In section 30, the Bill provides that a forum be established "known as the Limerick Mayoral and Government Consultative Forum ... to advise the Minister in relation to any matter that affects, or is likely to affect, Limerick or the performance of the functions of the Mayor". We in the Labour Party propose that the meetings should take place on a quarterly rather than a biannual basis, as is currently proposed. What goes to the heart of these amendments is the fact that the people of Limerick will vote for a mayor who will be perceived to have real executive power. They have voted for decentralisation and for local government. Therefore, there must be regular dialogue between the mayor and the Government to ensure that the voice of the former is heard.
We cannot accept a situation wherein the role of the mayor remains procedural or administrative, or even symbolic, with the Custom House - and I mean no disrespect to the good people who work there - and the permanent staff of the local authorities continuing to retain the lion's share of influence on matters for which voters intended the mayor to possess. Our amendment attempts to redress that imbalance by providing for more regular communication.
Amendment No. 26 deals with the mayoral programme. Section 31 of the Bill provides that "The Mayor shall, within the period of 4 months from the commencement of his or her term of office, prepare and publish a programme [called the mayoral programme] setting out the key objectives and priorities for his or her term of office." As currently drafted, the mayor shall present a draft of the mayoral programme for consideration, and that is the key word, by the elected council at an ordinary meeting within four months of the commencement of his or her term of office. All our amendment seeks to do is to strengthen that language by replacing the word "consideration" with "approval". As I stated earlier, the electorate of Limerick was clear in voting for stronger local government and with the creation of a strong directly elected mayoral role, there must also be a strong council vote. Elected councillors should be enabled to do the work they were elected to do.
Amendment No. 27 seeks to allow councillors to propose amendments to the mayor's programme for office. While we are conscious that this is the mayor's programme and not the councillors' programme, we feel they should have the power to have a view on it. This amendment would facilitate suggestions from councillors and allow councillors to feel more a part of the programme while having some ownership over its implementation.
I propose to address amendments Nos. 24 to 28, inclusive, as they have been grouped for discussion. They relate to sections 30 and 31 of the Bill and the requirement on the mayor to establish the consultative forum and to prepare and publish a mayoral programme for his or her term.
Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 relate to section 30 of the Bill, which provides for the establishment of the Limerick mayoral and government consultative forum to facilitate engagement between the mayor and national government. As I said on Committee Stage, I believe the forum will play a decisive role in supporting the office of mayor, bringing the added value of having a directly elected mayor to the people of Limerick. It is a statutory body, which should not be lost.
The amendment in the name of Deputy Quinlivan would increase the frequency and number of meetings of the consultative forum, obliging it to meet three times a year, up from twice a year. The amendment in the name of Deputy Bacik, proposed by Deputy Sherlock, would oblige the forum to meet four times a year. I cannot at this time see the benefit of placing a statutory requirement on the forum to meet more frequently than already provided for. I specifically included in section 30(8) that in addition to the two meetings the forum must hold, it shall also hold as many other meetings "as may be necessary for the due performance of its functions". Additional meetings can be requested by either party, that is, by the Government or by the mayor. That is important.
I believe that the blend of a statutory minimum number of meetings, which are plenary sessions that will happen twice a year within five or seven months because I did not want to be prescriptive by requiring them to happen every six months, with the facility to have as many additional meetings as necessary, is the right balance. The minimum number of meetings brings focus and consistency, while the option of further meetings brings flexibility in the performance of its operation. It should not be lost that I have provided for that forum to have a secretariat because I believe it is important. As the existing arrangements represent a good combination for the meeting arrangements, I cannot accept these amendments. I do, however, understand the spirit in which they are proposed. I hope I have provided for the issue in substance within the section.
Amendment No. 26 would oblige the mayor to obtain the approval of the elected council for the mayoral programme. Amendment No. 27 would oblige the mayor in addition to considering any comments or observations of the council, to also consider any potential amendments to the mayoral programme. Considering comments or observations from elected members may well give rise to the mayor amending the mayoral programme if he or she wishes to do so, I would hope there would be a collaborative approach. It is hugely important that the mayor works with the director general and the council members. I have noted that is the common denominator in other jurisdictions where such a system has worked.
There are cases in the UK at the moment where local authorities are reversing their decision to have directly elected mayors. I am conscious that we have to get this right. As I noted when the issue was discussed on Committee Stage, I do not see what advantage there could be to adding a reference to potential amendments. I do not consider that the mayoral programme should be subject to the approval of the council. Why am I saying that? I appreciate that the members of the council have been democratically elected. However, the directly elected mayor will have placed his or her manifesto before the people of Limerick and his or her election will have been based on the commitments in that manifesto. The mayoral programme must reflect that and must be allowed to reflect that.
The normal budget will be brought by the mayor to the elected members. That budget is unaffected by the mayor. The mayor will get additional direct funding from the Government to fund the mayoral programme based on his or her manifesto. We have already provided funding for that for next year. Certainly the elected members will have an important role in bringing the benefits of their knowledge and expertise to the feedback they give to the mayor but I will not go as far as to provide that they can seek to amend the manifesto for which the people have voted. We must always go back to the core of what is involved here. It is based on the democratic wish of the people. It is not in any way impacting on the budget that the members have at the moment. This is an additional budget that the mayor is bringing. I do not accept that this dilutes the role of councillors. Rather, all parties in the chamber have an important role in the strengthening of local democracy. In preparing the mayoral programme members have regard to the statutory obligations of the council, Government policy and the views of the elected councillors. The provisions as they currently are in the Bill are correct.
Amendment No. 28 would require the mayor to undertake a public consultation before finalising the mayoral programme. As the programme has been voted on by the people of Limerick based on the election manifesto, I must again make the point that I regard the public consultation to have already taken place in the most democratic way possible by way of an election. On a separate point, it is somewhat of a contradiction to provide for a non-statutory public consultation in legislation. That is just a technical legal point.
Finally, the Bill provides for a Limerick mayoral advisory and implementation committee with the function of assisting the mayor in the preparation of the mayoral programme. The forum can ensure that any further engagement the mayor thinks is required can take place. Once again, that is a statutory forum. The mayor can bring all stakeholders together, something for which we have all been calling. It will provide added value. For these reasons, I cannot accept these amendments although I do not question the genuineness of the intent behind them.
In amendment No. 26, we are looking for a strengthening of the language by replacing the word "consideration" with "approval". I note the Minister of State's intervention regarding the two distinct and discrete budget lines here and that is understood. Let me also acknowledge the very personal interest he has taken in shepherding this legislation through the Houses, probably crafting a lot of the language around this and thinking very deeply about this legislation. That is to be acknowledged, absolutely.
What we are seeking to do in amendment No. 26 is to reinforce the checks and balances mechanism. To be a little bit verbose about it and to exaggerate a case, let us say that we have a personality who is elected as mayor for a period of five years through the popular will of the people and that person takes on tendencies that become autocratic, narcissistic, or even totalitarian - I use all sorts of adjectives but I am exaggerating a point. What is to prevent the mayor from crafting a programme of his or her volition, for which ultimately there is a budget line and to which the members can only give consideration, which is not ad idem with the spirit and wishes of the people who have given the mayor the mandate in the first instance? We have seen, chapter and verse, instances in political life where people start off well meaning and then a little bit of power goes to the ceann and all sorts of things happen. I acknowledge this is an exaggerated example but it is one which we are trying to allow or account for.
We want to this work. I look at this in a positive light. In Part 7 of the Bill we have, in very carefully crafted terms, a provision for the removal or recall of the mayor. A significant amount of work was done with the Attorney General on that. Councillors are very discerning and I have great faith in councillors. I want this to work. That mechanism is available. I hope it will not have to be used but it is provided in the Bill. On the basis of the points made previously, I will not be accepting these amendments.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 22, lines 2 and 3, to delete “twice in each year at intervals of not less than 5, and not more than 7, months,” and substitute “quarterly in each year at intervals of not more than 3
months,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 22, line 16, to delete “consideration” and substitute “approval”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 22, lines 22 and 23, to delete “comments or observations” and substitute “comments, observations and potential amendments”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 22, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:
“(6) The Mayor shall, before finalising the Mayoral programme, undertake a process of non-statutory public consultation with the people of Limerick City and County regarding the Mayoral programme.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 29 to 32, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 23, to delete lines 5 and 6 and substitute the following:
“(b) a representative group of members of Limerick City and County Council appointed by the D’Hondt system, and”.
This amendment deals with the composition of the Limerick mayoral advisory and implementation committee as contained in section 32 of the Bill. The function of the committee is to operate as a quasi-cabinet overseeing matters of importance to Limerick. We in the Labour Party are proposing the adoption of the D'Hondt system for populating that committee rather than by mere appointment. Everyone in this House appreciates the collaborative nature of local government. Often we see coalitions and partnerships form which would be entirely untenable in these Houses heretofore. With this legislation we see the stratification of the mayor's office, the executive and the elected council itself and for the proposals to work, there must be cohesion and buy in. Ensuring that this new committee is representative of the council would assist in delivering that cohesion and help to make this long-awaited proposal work properly.
I wish to speak to amendment No. 30 in this group which mirrors the amendment moved by Deputy Sherlock. It seeks to ensure that committees are populated in a fair manner, similar to what is done in this House. Let us imagine a Sinn Féin mayor is elected. Under this legislation, the Sinn Féin mayor could populate the committees with all of his or her party colleagues.
I do not believe anybody would think that is fair. If we leave it up to the mayor to do it, it will be left open to abuse.
I will speak to a number of the amendments. In amendment No 30, we refer to removing “the Mayor as the Mayor considers appropriate” and substituting it with “the D’Hondt system”. It is very important to have this. We referenced it in the context of local democracy. It is important there is a democratic element to the selection of members of the Limerick mayoral advisory and implementation committee. The current wording is too broad and has the potential to allow a mayor to just select councillors from his or her party or a bunch of Independents. The introduction of a democratic selection process is important to ensure that all elected councillors have equality of opportunity to participate in the forum as we do in Oireachtas committees, as was said my colleague, Deputy Mitchell.
Amendment No. 31 proposes to insert after subsection (4) the following: “including, but not limited to, businesses, trade unions, Community and Voluntary Sector organisations,”. This is to make sure that we include a wider group of public opinion to these positions ensuring that the community, unions and employers are all represented. There was no mention of unions in the first draft of the Bill.
Amendment No. 32 proposes to insert "subject to the approval of elected members,” after “time”. Again, this is a necessary amendment to ensure the position of local councillors is respected. It ensures that they give approval to the dissolution of the advisory committee. It is not just that. It is important when we talk about the new mayor that we protect, as far as possible, the role of local councillors, which has been diminished over the years.
Amendments Nos. 29 to 31, inclusive, tabled by Deputies Quinlivan and Bacik, all relate to section 32 of the Bill to establish the Limerick mayoral advisory and implementation committee.
Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 seek changes to how councillors will be appointed to the committee. A key role of this committee, which the mayor will chair, will be to support the mayor in preparing the implementation of the mayoral programme. It will work with the mayor to drive progress in economic, tourist, social and cultural matters, initiatives to sustain employment, co-ordinating initiative services, and funding to support rural areas and measures concerned with town regeneration. It is appropriate the mayor should be the person to appoint committee members, including elected members and representatives from nominating bodies, as appropriate.
The Deputies previously expressed concern at committee hearings that the mayor may simply select councillors from his or her own party. First, it cannot be assumed that the successful candidate will be a member of a political party. Second, and more important, it is clearly in the mayor's own interest to have a broad representation on this committee. It goes back to the same point all the time. Looking at all the examples, if the mayor does not work with people, it does not work. We have to have that element as well. It is clear that the mayor must have broad representation on this committee, as it is key to the success of his or her term as mayor. I do not agree that the amendment constraining the mayor in this way is proportionate so I cannot accept these amendments. It is a balancing act. On balance, it is constraining the mayor. It is about the mayoral programme, based on the mayor's democratic mandate. I am not in any way impacting on the reserve functions of councillors.
Amendment No. 31 proposes a range of suggestions for the type of nominating body the mayor could approach to seek a nomination for membership of the committee. Nominees being members drawn from the suggested sectors of business, trade unions, community and voluntary organisations would certainly be a positive thing. The generality of the provision, as currently drafted, means there is no obstacle to the mayor asking these or any other sectors to nominate a person to the committee. Once again, therefore, on balance, I do not see the need for the amendment.
Amendment No. 32 would prevent the mayor from dissolving his or her own committees or subcommittees unless he or she has the approval of elected members of the council, but these will be set up by the mayor. That is the reason they will happen. They will not happen on the suggestion of the local authority but will be set up because the mayor will set them up. Section 32 quite rightly gives the mayor the power to establish and assemble the members of committees but this amendment would mean the mayor could not disband the committees or subcommittees without councillors approving it. How could there be a situation where the mayor sets up something but has to go to someone else to disband it? All I can say is it is for the mayor to decide how the mayoral committee should be stood up or stood down. On that basis, I cannot accept the amendment.
I know all the amendments are being put forward with the best of intentions. When I looked at the legislation, however, I wanted to ensure the mayor will have a democratic mandate. The mayor will obviously be judged not only by the electorate but councillors as well. There are a lot of checks and balances in the legislation. On the basis of what I said, I cannot accept these amendments.
The Minister of State made a point about the possibility of somebody who is an Independent, or maybe not of politics heretofore, being elected. That might emerge to include hurling managers, all-stars, rugby stars or whoever.
It is something the people will decide.
That is accepted. It is self-evident and an obvious thing for the Minister of State to say. We understand that point. The application of a d'Hondt system would have buttressed somebody who is an Independent, per the Minister of State's point. He talked about checks and balances but there still has to be a check and balance against a popularly elected mayor. I may have exaggerated the previous points I made with respect to the type of person that might emerge, but five years is a long mandate. If, after two years, the mayor takes on certain characteristics and becomes unpopular for all sorts of reasons, the amendments tabled by Sinn Féin and us in this regard provide those checks and balances. As I understand it, the recall mechanism, and perhaps the Minister of State will explain it further, is quite a difficult thing to do in a short space of time. I would have thought there would be a stage-gate process where the recall would be the absolute ultimate decision-maker, mechanism or tool that could be used but in advance of that, by having a check against the mayor, notwithstanding his or her mandate, the interests of the people are being guarded through directly elected councillors.
I note the point the Deputy made, but this is crafted around the mayor's own programme. The mayor will get Exchequer funding to promote this programme. He or she will bring that programme to the people on the basis of a democratic mandate. This advisory group will be formed around that remit. It is open to the mayor to have whoever he or she wishes on it. One of the areas that is built in is that councillors will be on that group. A mayor may go in and decide to adopt what is the d'Hondt system. That is up to the mayor. I go back again to the fact I want to ensure that whatever the people vote on can be implemented. It is that simple. It is not in any way interfering with or taking away from the remit of the existing council. However, if the mayor has a mandate, that mayor must be able to see his or her mandate through. That is the basis of it.
This legislation is subject to review. The recall system is there. It is robust and, once again, has to be based on being fair and balanced but, ultimately, this section of the Bill on the mayoral advisory forum will be based on the mayor's own programme for which he or she will have a democratic mandate. I want to ensure the mayor can deliver on that.
Sorry, I know that time is ticking on.
How does a member of an advisory group or panel perceive himself or herself in terms of the power he or she has or does not have? If a person is elected mayor tomorrow and appoints me as an advisor to that group, how do I perceive my role? The Minister of State is setting it out in statute here that there is an advisory panel. How does he or she perceive his or her power if he or she does not have a mandate directly? I know that I am covering for others on this legislation but these are issues that do need to be teased out a little bit further.
In response-----
The format precludes an additional response.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 23, lines 5 and 6, to delete “the Mayor as the Mayor considers appropriate” and substitute “the D’Hondt system”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 23, line 8, after “subsection (4),” to insert the following:
“including, but not limited to, businesses, trade unions, Community and Voluntary Sector organisations,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 24, line 12, after “time” to insert “, subject to the approval of elected members,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 33 to 35, inclusive, not moved.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendments Nos. 36 to 70, inclusive.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 28, lines 1 and 2, to delete “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) Act 2023” and substitute “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 28, line 10, to delete “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) Act 2023” and substitute “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 28, lines 17 and 18, to delete “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) Act 2023” and substitute “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 39:
In page 28, lines 20 and 21, to delete “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) Act 2023” and substitute “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 28, lines 22 and 23, to delete “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) Act 2023” and substitute “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 41:
In page 29, lines 16 and 17, to delete “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) Act 2023” and substitute “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 42:
In page 30, line 2, to delete “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) Act 2023” and substitute “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 30, lines 11 and 12, to delete “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) Act 2023” and substitute “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 44:
In page 30, lines 15 and 16, to delete “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) Act 2023” and substitute “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 45:
In page 30, lines 21 and 22, to delete “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) Act 2023” and substitute “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 46:
In page 30, lines 24 and 25, to delete “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) Act 2023” and substitute “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 47:
In page 30, lines 31 and 32, to delete “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) Act 2023” and substitute “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 48:
In page 31, lines 10 and 11, to delete “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) Act 2023” and substitute “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 49:
In page 31, lines 13 and 14, to delete “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) Act 2023” and substitute “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 50:
In page 32, lines 31 and 32, to delete “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) Act 2023” and substitute “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 51:
In page 33, line 29, to delete “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) Act 2023” and substitute “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 52:
In page 37, lines 14 and 15, to delete “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) Act 2023” and substitute “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 53:
In page 38, line 12, to delete “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) Act 2023” and substitute “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 54:
In page 41, line 7, to delete “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) Act 2023” and substitute “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 55:
In page 46, lines 4 and 5, to delete “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) Act 2023” and substitute “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 56:
In page 47, lines 25 and 26, to delete “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) Act 2023” and substitute “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 57:
In page 50, line 30, to delete “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) Act 2023” and substitute “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 58:
In page 58, line 6, to delete “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) Act 2023” and substitute “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 59:
In page 60, lines 30 and 31, to delete “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) Act 2023” and substitute “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 60:
In page 61, lines 4 and 5, to delete “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) Act 2023” and substitute “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 61:
In page 61, lines 6 and 7, to delete “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) Act 2023” and substitute “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 62:
In page 61, lines 10 and 11, to delete “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) Act 2023” and substitute “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 63:
In page 61, lines 11 and 12, to delete “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) Act 2023” and substitute “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 64:
In page 61, line 17, to delete “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) Act 2023” and substitute “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 65:
In page 61, lines 22 and 23, to delete “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) Act 2023” and substitute “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 66:
In page 61, line 29, to delete “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) Act 2023” and substitute “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 67:
In page 62, lines 6 and 7, to delete “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) Act 2023” and substitute “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 68:
In page 62, lines 8 and 9, to delete “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) Act 2023” and substitute “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 69:
In page 62, lines 34 and 35, to delete “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) Act 2023” and substitute “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 70:
In page 63, lines 13 and 14, to delete “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) Act 2023” and substitute “Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023”.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Amendment No. 71 in the name of Deputy Paul Murphy has been ruled out of order due to a potential charge on the Revenue. Does Deputy Murphy wish to have a brief comment on this amendment?
No. I will comment on amendment No. 73.
Amendment No. 71 not moved.
Very good. Amendments Nos. 72 to 74, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 72:
In page 64, line 11, to delete “20 per cent” and substitute “15 per cent”.
These amendments relate to Part 6, which deals with holding plebiscites to consider proposals by local authorities for the directly elected mayor of the administrative area of the local authority. Amendment No. 72 relates to section 47, which sets out the proposals for initiating a protocol for proposals for holding a plebiscite and that includes circumstances where a petition is signed by more than 20% of the electors of the administrative area and certified by the chief executive. As previously indicated, the provisions in the Bill reflect the commitment in the programme for Government to allow for plebiscites to be held in 2024 in any local authority that wishes to have a directly elected mayor.
Demand will be demonstrated at the request of the local authority but we have provided for a petition from 20% of registered voters. Members will recall this was a subject of extensive debate on Committee Stage. I saw merits in the argument to reduce the 20% requirement. They were mainly of a practical and logistical nature, which suggests the current 20% would be impossible to achieve. Following consultations with the relevant Government colleagues and with a view to ensuring we deliver on the spirit and intention of the committee, I considered the matter further. I have tabled the amendment to reduce the threshold from 20% to 15%. The proposed change aims to achieve a balance between setting a more achievable threshold on a practical level and maintaining it at a level indicating a level of support for such a proposal which would warrant it being put to the people in a plebiscite. I hope Deputy O’Callaghan considers this goes some way towards addressing his proposal in amendment No. 73.
Section 7 allows for a review of all aspects of the Bill, including the plebiscite provisions in Part 6, after it has been operational for a period. If we need to change how the petition mechanism operates based on practical experience, further amendments can be considered at that stage. For now, based on the discussions and my examination of the matter, I consider a threshold of 15% is appropriate but it will be subject to the outcome of any review under section 7.
Amendment No. 74 relates to section 52. That section provides that, where the outcome of a plebiscite is in favour of a directly elected mayor, the Minister shall within two years prepare and submit a report to the Oireachtas proposing legislative measures for a directly elected mayor of that administrative area. Similar to the amendment tabled by Deputy Quinlivan on Committee Stage, the amendment proposes to require the Minister to act within 12 months. It is anticipated the experience of and learning taken from the establishment of the office of a directly elected mayor with executive functions in Limerick City and County Council will be informative and will provide important insights into any future process. It would be important for the Minister to have sufficient time to consider details of a plebiscite proposal, to develop policy and legislative proposals and to have regard to the specific local authority involved, as each one has its own unique characteristics. For example, the Limerick proposal process involved the establishment of an independent advisory group, which made a substantial and significant contribution to our thought process, involved multiple stakeholders and was ably chaired by Tim O’Connor. Its report facilitated consultation with a wider range of key stakeholders and informed the subsequent legislation. I do not think we should rule out such potential engagement by restricting the time period within which a Minister is required to act.
I note there would be nothing to prevent the Minister presenting a report in advance of the two years set out in the Bill. Rather, two years is the outside timeframe. I have given the matter some consideration and on balance, I believe the timeframe in the Bill is the correct one.
Section 49 provides a general power for the Minister in the area of plebiscites.
Just to motivate my amendment, the same wording comes from Deputy Cian O'Callaghan. It was 10% that a plebiscite could be triggered by-----
I did not reference Deputy Murphy, as he was not at the committee but I would have.
No problem. It was that a petition of more than 10% of people in a local authority would trigger a plebiscite on having a directly elected mayor. In fairness, the Minister of State is moving from 10% to 15%. That is a step in the right direction. I would still argue for 10%. It is a serious undertaking to get 10% of electors to sign a petition in a proper manner that can be checked. A serious operation would be required to get that many people. In Dublin, it would take the guts of 100,000 people to get 10%. It is not an unreasonably low threshold and even 15% is unreasonably high. It is a barrier. We want to encourage groups to say they should have a directly elected mayor. This is a route to do that involving people in local democracy.
If the decision is made by people to campaign in this way and they are successful, we will have to come back and not repeat some of the mistakes being made here and ensure we have mayors with substantial power, taken not from elected councillors but from unelected CEOs, as they are currently constituted. We should have recallable mayors. That was one of the amendments that was ruled out. We could have plebiscites for people. As mayors are answerable to and elected by the people, they could be recalled by the people through the same mechanism used for plebiscites to establish a directly elected mayor. They should be on the average wage of ordinary workers, as opposed to the high salaries foreseen. While 15% is better than 20%, I will press the amendment for 10%.
As the Minister of State is aware, in amendment No. 74, we propose to delete “2 years” and substitute “12 months". It was 1,664 days ago when the people of Limerick voted for a directly elected mayor, and here we are. We do not want other areas to have the same problems we had. We do not want it delayed or that a government could be elected that is not interested in it. We want to make sure it is done as fast as possible.
I raised this on Committee Stage and made the point I will make now. Everyone will know what the plebiscite is on and that it will pass or not pass. There is no suggestion people would not be ready or able for it within one year. The five-year delay in Limerick between plebiscite and first directly elected mayor has dampened the appetite for the position. It was passed by a small majority. We have not yet convinced the people who voted against it of the merits of it. We are losing some of those who voted in favour of it because they do not see it as giving the additional powers we asked for.
I assume the Minister of State will reject our amendment, as he did the other ones. We had one on the D’Hondt system. My party would have had people on the AILG but was excluded from it, but the report it eventually came up with was quite a good one.
We will push amendment No. 74 because we believe it should be done within a year and it would be no surprise to anybody when it happens.
On amendment No. 74, it is just the practicalities. We believe we should allow scope. We do not want something rushed. I do not see a huge difference between one year and two if we get it right. It is in legislation.
I looked at the plebiscite. There was about a 50% turn-out in the last local elections. With such a turn-out, 10% would mean that only 20% of the people were looking for a plebiscite, whereas with 15% you would have 30%. It is a balancing act. I have carefully considered it and looked at it empirically.
Will the Minister of State accept a point of order?
Not at this point. We will let him finish.
Everything is subject to review. We have tabled amendment No. 72, which brings it from 20% to 15%. We hope Deputies will support it.
Does Deputy Sherlock have a point of order?
Am I in order to make a point about-----
The Deputy is welcome to come in and contribute on the amendment.
May I contribute on the amendment?
The Deputy certainly can.
I want to make a small contribution. I note the point that the Minister of State makes but he is deriving his percentages on the basis of turnout. I respectfully suggest to the Minister of State that he should be deriving his percentages on the basis of the overall electorate.
Finally-----
If the Minister of State waits a moment, I will let him in. Does anybody else want to come in at this point? No.
I will let it stand. I think I have spoken enough on it.
How stands the amendment?
Which amendment?
The amendment we are dealing with, which is amendment No. 72.
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 73:
In page 64, line 11, to delete “20 per cent” and substitute “10 per cent”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 74:
In page 67, line 36, to delete “2 years” and substitute “12 months”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 75 not moved.
I move amendment No. 76:
In page 73, line 22, after “Minister,” to insert “and”.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendment No. 77.
I move amendment No. 77:
In page 74, after line 16, to insert the following:
“PART 8
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Amendment of Affordable Housing Act 2021
65. The Affordable Housing Act 2021 is amended—
(a) in section 1(2), by the substitution of “Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Act 2015, section 65 of the Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023” for “Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Act 2015”, and
(b) in section 10—
(i) in subsection (3), by the substitution of “the previous purchase or building of the dwelling concerned, or the previous purchase or building of any other dwelling in the State,” for “the previous purchase or building of the dwelling concerned”, and
(ii) in subsection (5), by the substitution of “the previous purchase or building of the dwelling concerned, or the previous purchase or building of any other dwelling in the State,” for “the previous purchase or building of the dwelling concerned”.
Miscellaneous amendments to Principal Act
66. The Principal Act is amended—
(a) in section 128A, by the substitution, in the definition of “chief officer”, of “section 128D(1)(b)” for “section 128E(1)”,
(b) in section 160(1)(b)—
(i) by the substitution of “shall consult with the Public Appointments Service” for “shall consult with the Commission for Public Service Appointments”,
(ii) by the designation of that paragraph as subparagraph (i), and
(iii) by the insertion of the following:
“(ii) Where a Minister has, prior to the commencement of section 66 of the Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023, declared qualifications under this section, such a declaration shall not be affected by reason only that he or she did not, prior to the making of that declaration, consult with the Commission for Public Service Appointments.
(iii) Subparagraph (ii) shall not apply to proceedings challenging a declaration under this section that were initiated prior to the commencement of section 66 of the Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023.”,
(c) in section 173, by the substitution, in subsection (1), of “chief executive of” for “manager for”, and
(d) in section 178—
(i) in subsection (1), by the substitution of “chief executive of” for “manager for”,
(ii) in subsection (2), by the substitution of “The chief executive” for “The manager”,
(iii) in subsection (4), by the substitution of “the chief executive” for “the manager”, and
(iv) in subsection (5), by the substitution of “The chief executive” for “The manager”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.
Amendment No. 78 has already been discussed with amendment No. 19. How stands that amendment?
I am not pressing it, as it is consequential on amendment No. 19, which fell.
Amendment No. 78 not moved.
I move amendment No. 79:
In page 75, to delete lines 7 to 17 and substitute the following:
|
No. 37 of 2001 |
Local Government Act 2001 |
Sections 11(5)(b), 11(8), 31(4)(a), 31(5), 31(7), 31(9), 31(11), 33, 34(2)(e), 36, 37, 38, 74(1)(b), 104(7)(a), 133(6)(a), 134(4)(b), 140(8), 141(1)(b), 141(4), 142(2)(a), 142(5)(f), 143(1), 147, 148, 158(3), 174(8), 178(2)(b), 178(5), 180(3)(a), 189(9), 190(9), 216(2)(a), 219(1) and 220(1); |
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 80, 81 and 83, in the name of Deputy McNamara, are physical alternatives. We will take amendment No. 80 first. It cannot proceed because amendment No. 79 has-----
On a point of order, it actually can because the amendment does not remove it. It still remains. The Leas Cheann-Comhairle can check. It is, "In page 75, line 10, to delete “74(1)(b),”.", and section 74(1)(b) still remains notwithstanding the amendment, so it does not actually remove it. Section 74(1)(b) remains in situ.
This is amendment No. 79.
Yes. Amendment No. 79 was accepted-----
Yes, the Deputy is right.
-----but that does not amend or change where section 74(1)(b) sits.
Amendments Nos. 80, 81 and 83 are in Deputy McNamara's name, and they are physical alternatives to amendment No. 79.
They are not.
I am saying they are physical alternatives.
I am saying they are most clearly not.
I am saying they are as Chair, so that is where it rests at the moment.
How can the Leas Cheann-Comhairle say that after the amendment that was made? I was not going to press them in any event but I think the House should follow proper procedure. On page 75, line 10----
Deputy, I am not-----
I am entitled to make a point of order.
The Deputy is not. He is not making a point of order.
Even if-----
The Deputy did not ask to make a point of order.
I am asking to make a point of order now.
Oh dear.
I want to get this legislation through. It is very important.
Regarding page 75, line 10, the effect of the Minister of State's amendment No. 79 was to remove some parts of the Schedule in the Local Government Act 2001 but all of the sections 11(5)(b) right down to section 220(1) remain in exactly the same place. I do not see how it changes that. I had not intended to press the amendments in any event but there is a great propensity for the Bills Office to rule stuff out of order or try to stifle debate. I think it is unhealthy in a democracy. That is the point I would make.
The Deputy has made the point and I am sticking to my ruling. I checked this earlier on. Amendments Nos. 80, 81 and 83 are physical alternatives to amendment No. 79, so they cannot be moved.
Amendments Nos. 80 to 83, inclusive, not moved.
I will move on to amendment No. 84 in the name of the Minister of State, which arises out of Committee proceedings. In the interest of clarity, amendments Nos. 84 to 87, inclusive, are related. Amendments Nos. 85 to 87, inclusive, are physical alternatives to amendment No. 84, and so amendments Nos. 84 to 87 will be discussed together.
Can the Leas Cheann-Comhairle clarify again the status of amendments Nos. 80 to 83, inclusive?
Amendments Nos. 80 to 82, inclusive, cannot be moved.
What about amendment No. 83?
Amendments Nos. 80 to 83, inclusive, cannot be moved. We are on to amendment No. 84.
I thank the Leas Cheann-Comhairle.
I move amendment No. 84:
In page 75, to delete lines 26 to 44, to delete page 76, and in page 77 to delete lines 1 to 5 and substitute the following:
|
Number and Year (1) |
Short Title (2) |
Provision (3) |
|
1 & 2 Vict., c. 56. |
Poor Relief (Ireland) Act 1838 |
Section 73. |
|
38 & 39 Vict., c. 17. |
Explosives Act 1875 |
The whole Act. |
|
41 & 42 Vict., c. 52. |
Public Health (Ireland) Act 1878 |
Sections 178, 180, 185, 186, 187, 189, 190, 191 and 196. |
|
No. 34 of 1926 |
Local Authorities (Mutual Assurance) Act 1926 |
Section 3. |
|
No. 39 of 1926 |
Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act 1926 |
Sections 5 and 6. |
|
No. 3 of 1948 |
Local Government (Sanitary Services) Act 1948 |
Sections 45 and 46. |
|
No. 17 of 1949 |
Local Authorities (Works) Act 1949 |
The whole Act. |
|
No. 30 of 1953 |
Intoxicating Liquor Act 1953 |
Section 6. |
|
No. 37 of 1954 |
National Monuments (Amendment) Act 1954 |
Section 17. |
|
No. 18 of 1960 |
Intoxicating Liquor Act 1960 |
Section 41. |
|
No. 9 of 1962 |
Coroners Act 1962 |
The whole Act. |
|
No. 21 of 1966 |
Housing Act 1966 |
Sections 4, 34, 35, 49, 58, 61, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 71, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 90, 91, 98, 107, 112, 116 and 117. |
|
No. 10 of 1972 |
Dangerous Substances Act 1972 |
The whole Act. |
|
No. 8 of 1974 |
Local Elections (Petitions and Disqualifications) Act 1974 |
The whole Act. |
|
No. 14 of 1975 |
Local Authorities (Traffic Wardens) Act 1975 |
The whole Act. |
|
No. 1 of 1977 |
Local Government (Water Pollution) Act 1977 |
Section 28. |
|
No. 27 of 1979 |
Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1979 |
Sections 6 and 11. |
|
No. 8 of 1980 |
Local Government (Superannuation) Act 1980 |
Section 2. |
|
No. 30 of 1981 |
Fire Services Act 1981 |
The whole Act. |
|
No. 32 of 1986 |
Control of Dogs Act 1986 |
The whole Act. |
|
No. 6 of 1987 |
Air Pollution Act 1987 |
Sections 7, 12A, 12B, 12C, 13, 14(3), 16, 17, 18, 22, 26, 27, 28, 28A, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 51(4), 54 and 57. |
|
No. 8 of 1988 |
Abattoirs Act 1988 |
The whole Act. |
|
No. 28 of 1988 |
Housing Act 1988 |
Sections 2, 4, 10, 13, 16, 17, 18 and 29. |
|
No. 29 of 1988 |
Local Government (Multi-Storey Buildings) Act 1988 |
The whole Act. |
|
No. 3 of 1990 |
Building Control Act 1990 |
The whole Act. |
|
No. 11 of 1991 |
Local Government Act 1991 |
Section 28(6). |
|
No. 7 of 1992 |
Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 |
The whole Act. |
|
No. 18 of 1992 |
Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1992 |
Sections 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 18A, 18B, 34 and 37. |
|
No. 23 of 1992 |
Electoral Act 1992 |
The whole Act. |
|
No. 28 of 1992 |
Finance (No. 2) Act 1992 |
Sections 20A, 20B and 21. |
|
No. 13 of 1993 |
Finance Act 1993 |
Sections 59, 60 and 61. |
|
No. 14 of 1993 |
Roads Act 1993 |
Sections 13(10), 46, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74(5), 75(3), 76(6), (12), (14), (15) and (16). |
|
No. 28 of 1993 |
Presidential Elections Act 1993 |
The whole Act. |
|
No. 12 of 1994 |
Referendum Act 1994 |
The whole Act. |
|
No. 10 of 1996 |
Waste Management Act 1996 |
The whole Act. |
|
No. 37 of 1996 |
Control of Horses Act 1996 |
The whole Act. |
|
No. 2 of 1997 |
European Parliament Elections Act 1997 |
The whole Act. |
|
No. 12 of 1997 |
Litter Pollution Act 1997 |
The whole Act. |
|
No. 21 of 1997 |
Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1997 |
Sections 3, 3A, 6(2), 9, 14, 14A, 15 and 20. |
|
No. 25 of 1997 |
Electoral Act 1997 |
The whole Act. |
|
No. 29 of 1997 |
Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act 1997 |
Section 14(5). |
|
No. 29 of 1998 |
Food Safety Authority of Ireland Act 1998 |
The whole Act. |
|
No. 33 of 1998 |
Housing (Traveller Accommodation) Act 1998 |
Section 25. |
|
No. 7 of 1999 |
Local Elections (Disclosure of Donations and Expenditure) Act 1999 |
The whole Act. |
|
No. 30 of 2000 |
Planning and Development Act 2000 |
Sections 5, 7, 8, 18(3), 22, 31I(3), 31AI(4), 31AW(2), 57, 59, 60, 61, 69, 70, 71 to 79, 82, 83, 87, 88, 89, 90, 96, 96B, 97, 147, 148, 170, 178, 178A, 179A, 180, 182, 206, 208, 209, 216, 217, 217B, 219, 247, 248, 249, 252, 254, 261 and 261A; Part III; Chapters III and IV of Part VI; Parts VIII, X, XA, XII, XVI, XVII and XXI. |
|
No. 37 of 2001 |
Local Government Act 2001 |
Sections 11(8), 28, 46, 52(5)(d) and (9), 81, 86, 97, 98, 99, 104, 107, 108, 109(5) and (6), 110(6), (9) and (10), 112, 120, 121, 122, 126D(7), 126E(1), 128A, 128D, 128E(2), 129I(5), 129M, 129N, 129O, 129P, 129Q, 129R, 129T, 132, 138, 140, 144(3)(a) and (8), 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 149A, 151, 152, 153, 158, 160(3) and (4), 166, 167(1)(c), 173(1), 174(8), 178(1), (2), (4) and (5), 179, 180(4)(b) and (c), 211B, 211C, 211D, 211E and 211F, 214(3), (4) and (5), 229; paragraphs 13(6) and 15(4) of Schedule 10. |
|
No. 32 of 2003 |
Official Languages Act 2003 |
Section 4B(a). |
|
No. 27 of 2004 |
Residential Tenancies Act 2004 |
The whole Act. |
|
No. 11 of 2005 |
Maritime Safety Act 2005 |
Section 17. |
|
No. 26 of 2005 |
Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 |
Sections 261(2), 269, 290A(5); Part 12. |
|
No. 33 of 2006 |
Electoral (Amendment) Act 2006 |
The whole Act. |
|
No. 22 of 2009 |
Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 |
Sections 10, 20, 22, 24, 25, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 56, 60, 61, 64, 74, 75, 76, 98 and 99. |
|
No. 29 of 2010 |
Dog Breeding Establishments Act 2010 |
The whole Act. |
|
No. 29 of 2011 |
Welfare of Greyhounds Act 2011 |
Sections 17, 26 and 27. |
|
No. 15 of 2013 |
Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013 |
The whole Act. |
|
No. 4 of 2014 |
County Enterprise Boards (Dissolution) Act 2014 |
Section 6(3). |
|
No. 21 of 2014 |
Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014 |
Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 53 and 55; Part 4. |
|
No. 30 of 2014 |
Freedom of Information Act 2014 |
The whole Act. |
|
No. 43 of 2014 |
Merchant Shipping (Registration of Ships) Act 2014 |
Sections 42 and 63. |
|
No. 24 of 2019 |
Local Government Rates and Other Matters Act 2019 |
Sections 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 16. |
|
No. 25 of 2021 |
Affordable Housing Act 2021 |
The whole Act. |
|
No. 48 of 2022 |
Water Environment (Abstractions and Associated Impoundments) Act 2022 |
Sections 90, 91, 97, 101 and 108. |
|
No. 28 of 2022 |
Remediation of Dwellings Damaged by the Use of Defective Concrete Blocks Act 2022 |
The whole Act. |
|
No. 17 of 2023 |
Civil Defence Act 2023 |
Sections 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9. |
|
No. 26 of 2023 |
Historic and Archaeological Heritage and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 |
Sections 87, 88 and 223; Parts 7 and 10. |
I propose to address amendments Nos. 84 to 87, inclusive, as they have been grouped together for discussion. Amendment No. 84 amends Schedule 1, Part 1 of the Bill, which sets out the executive functions to be retained by the director general, and not to transfer to the mayor. Functions referred to in sections 10 and 26 of the Bill, and the legislation containing these functions, is listed individually in the Schedule. This listing also means that references to "chief executive" in these provisions shall be construed as a reference to "director general". The amendment replaces the existing tables in the Schedule with new tables. These include all the elements of the original tables with further additions.
The main role of the director general will be to support the mayor. They will do this by taking on the effective administration and day-to-day running of the local authority, while the mayor's focus will be on matters at a strategic and policy level. The director general will be accountable to the mayor for the exercise of these functions, which is very important.
In addition, there are specific executive functions that will remain with the director general for which they are accountable to the council. These were outlined in the context of the plebiscite, identified in the report of the implementation advisory group, given further effect in the general scheme and reflected in the Bill before Members. In summary, these functions are: the administration of schemes and grants, including decisions on permission approvals, permits, consents, certificates, licences or other form of statutory authorisation; staffing matters and HR strategies; the Accounting Officer role; holding polls and managing elections; operating key schemes and service-level agreements, for example, HAP shared services; and compliance, enforcement and taking legal proceedings arising from these functions. In general, statutory functions conferring a benefit on a particular individual remain with the director general, while responsibility at a strategic and policy level will rest with the mayor.
Local authorities carry out more than 1,000 services for Departments and agencies. Many of these functions have a basis in the Statute Book. On both Second and Committee Stages, I indicated my intention to bring forward amendments to Schedule 1, Part 2 to fully reflect functions appropriate to the director general from all legislative codes. This involved extensive engagement across Government and is reflected in this amendment.
I want to confirm to Members that all new functions identified are in line with the policy approach, and similar to the types already in the published Bill. These will include: appointing officers to carry out compliance functions in areas such as water quality; considering individual grant applications; and functions in the administration of the freedom of information system.
Deputy McNamara has tabled a number of amendments in this grouping and I will turn to these now. On a general point, as mentioned earlier there are a number of core principles set out in the legislation on the roles of the mayor and director general. I believe the Deputy has a different view in some cases.
Amendment No. 85 relates section 149. For background, this section provides that the chief executive has responsibility for the efficient and effective operation of the local authority and for ensuring the implementation of policy decisions of the elected council. As mentioned above, both the mayor and the director general will be responsible for executive functions of the local authority.
The requirement under this section shall apply to both the mayor and the director general. The insertion of section 149 in Schedule 1, Part 2, confirms that this applies to the director general for the functions they are responsible for and the modification of section 149 in Schedule 3 ensures that the section applies the same requirements to the mayor in relation to mayoral executive functions.
Amendment No. 86 proposes the deletion of sections 10 to 12, inclusive, of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 from Part 2 of the Schedule. This section of the 2009 Act provides that it is a function of the housing authority to provide housing services such as social housing, affordable housing, grants and other services. In line with the policy outlined, the functions relate to individual households and involves a scheme of management and maintenance of individual houses. Likewise, amendment No. 87 proposes the deletion of section 6(3) of the County Enterprise Boards (Dissolution) Act 2014 in Part 2 of the Schedule, provides the transfer of the existing function of the county enterprise board to Enterprise Ireland, the transfer to be performed on behalf of Enterprise Ireland. Local enterprise offices, LEOs, perform this function on behalf of Enterprise Ireland and are established via service level agreements, SLAs, between Enterprise Ireland and local authorities. LEOs operate under the direction of the chief executive. The chief executive is also involved in day-to-day operational management of LEOs, including staff. SLAs also assign duties of appointing business sector representatives appropriate to the chief executive, who will decide individual cases.
In line with the policy outlined, as the operation is managed by SLAs, the role involves the management of staff and decisions about funding grants on a case-by-case basis that will also be deemed to be appropriately obtained by the director general. In essence, the amendments proposed by Deputy McNamara depart from the policy approved in the general scheme by removing provisions in the Schedule that appropriately assign responsibility for certain functions to the director general. These were also put to the people by way of plebiscite. As such, it will not be possible to accept them.
Statutory Instruments
|
Number and Year (1) |
Title (2) |
Provision (3) |
|
S.I. No. 15 of 1958 |
Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Order 1958 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 266 of 1988 |
Air Pollution Act 1987 (Licensing of Industrial Plant) Regulations 1988 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 385 of 1992 |
Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) (Amendment) Regulations 1992 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 409 of 1992 |
Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1992 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 179 of 1994 |
Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 (Noise) Regulations 1994 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 297 of 1995 |
Local Elections Regulations 1995 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 171 of 1997 |
Control of Horses Regulations 1997 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 374 of 1997 |
Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 (Control of volatile organic compound emissions resulting from petrol storage and distribution) Regulations 1997 |
Regulations 25 and 26. |
|
S.I. No. 375 of 1997 |
Air Pollution Act 1987 (Petroleum Vapour Emissions) Regulations 1997 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 496 of 1997 |
Building Control Regulations 1997 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 455 of 1998 |
Local Government (Superannuation) (Consolidation) Scheme 1998 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 341 of 2001 |
Waste Management (Farm Plastics) Regulations 2001 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 590 of 2001 |
Local Government Act 2001 (Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 2001 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 600 of 2001 |
Planning and Development Regulations 2001 |
Articles 6, 10, 81A, 82A, 83A and 202; Parts 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 19, 20, 21 and 22. |
|
S.I. No. 66 of 2002 |
Local Government Act 2001 (Meetings) Regulations 2002 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 281 of 2002 |
Local Authority Members (Gratuity) Regulations 2002 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 362 of 2006 |
Local Government Act 2001 (Bye-Laws) Regulations 2006 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 166 of 2007 |
Local Government (Business Improvement Districts Ratepayer Plebiscite) Regulations 2007 |
Regulation 4. |
|
S.I. No. 684 of 2007 |
Waste Water Discharge (Authorisation) Regulations 2007 |
Regulations 34, 41, 42, 43 and 44. |
|
S.I. No. 804 of 2007 |
Stores for Explosives Order 2007 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 79 of 2008 |
Bathing Water Quality Regulations 2008 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 58 of 2009 |
Arsenic, Cadmium, Mercury, Nickel and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Ambient Air Regulations 2009 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 272 of 2009 |
European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Waters) Regulations 2009 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 296 of 2009 |
European Communities Environmental Objectives (Freshwater Pearl Mussel) Regulations 2009 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 9 of 2010 |
European Communities Environmental Objectives (Groundwater) Regulations 2010 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 84 of 2011 |
Social Housing Assessment Regulations 2011 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 155 of 2011 |
European Communities Act 1972 (Environmental Specifications for Petrol, Diesel Fuels and Gas Oils for use by non-road mobile machinery, including inland waterway vessels, agricultural and forestry tractors, and recreational craft) Regulations 2011 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 477 of 2011 |
European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 687 of 2011 |
European Union (Stage II Petrol Vapour Recovery during Refuelling of Motor Vehicles at Service Stations) Regulations 2011 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 243 of 2012 |
European Union (Energy Performance of Buildings) Regulations 2012 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 564 of 2012 |
European Union (Paints, Varnishes, Vehicle Refinishing Products and Activities) Regulations 2012 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 565 of 2012 |
European Union (Installations and Activities Using Organic Solvents) Regulations 2012 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 225 of 2013 |
European Union (Construction Products) Regulations 2013 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 149 of 2014 |
European Union (Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment) Regulations 2014 |
The whole instrument, other than Regulations 20(1) and (4) and 44. |
|
S.I. No. 226 of 2014 |
Local Government (Financial and Audit Procedures) Regulations 2014 |
Articles 8 to 12; Part 3. |
|
S.I. No. 231 of 2014 |
Local Government (Performance of Reserved Functions in Respect of Municipal District Members) Regulations 2014 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 281 of 2014 |
European Union (End-of-Life Vehicles) Regulations 2014 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 282 of 2014 |
European Union (Packaging) Regulations 2014 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 283 of 2014 |
European Union (Batteries and Accumulators) Regulations 2014 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 573 of 2014 |
Local Government Act 1991 (Regional Assemblies) (Establishment) Order 2014 |
Articles 23 and 54(1). |
|
S.I. No. 430 of 2015 |
European Union (Household Food Waste and Bio-waste) Regulations 2015 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 400 of 2017 |
Waste Management (Tyres and Waste Tyres) Regulations 2017 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 533 of 2018 |
European Union (Mercury) Regulations 2018 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 630 of 2019 |
Dangerous Substances (Flammable Liquids and Fuels Retail Stores) Regulations 2019 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 631 of 2019 |
Dangerous Substances (Flammable Liquids and Fuels Distribution and Commercial Supply Stores) Regulations 2019 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 683 of 2019 |
Control of Dogs (Dog Licensing Database) Regulations 2019 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 22 of 2020 |
European Union (Food and Feed Hygiene) Regulations 2020 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 146 of 2020 |
European Union (Persistent Organic Pollutants) Regulations 2020 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 312 of 2021 |
Local Government (Remuneration of Local Authority Members) Regulations 2021 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 313 of 2021 |
Local Government (Expenses of Local Authority Members) Regulations 2021 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 425 of 2021 |
Affordable Housing Act 2021 (Cost Rental Designation) Regulations 2021 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 755 of 2021 |
Affordable Housing Act 2021 (Cost Rental Letting and Eligibility) Regulations 2021 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 756 of 2021 |
Affordable Housing Act 2021 (Cost Rental Rent Setting) Regulations 2021 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 113 of 2022 |
European Union (Good Agricultural Practice for Protection of Waters) Regulations 2022 |
Regulations 17, 26, 27 and 30. |
|
S.I. No. 519 of 2022 |
Housing (Domestic Lead Remediation Grant) Regulations 2022 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 529 of 2022 |
Air Pollution Act 1987 (Solid Fuels) Regulations 2022 |
Regulations 12 and 13. |
|
S.I. No. 21 of 2023 |
Affordable Housing (No. 2) Regulations 2023 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 99 of 2023 |
European Union (Drinking Water) Regulations 2023 |
Regulations 13, 14, 15, 17, 22, 24, 25, 29 and 30. |
|
S.I. No. 347 of 2023 |
Remediation of Dwellings Damaged by the Use of Defective Concrete Blocks Regulations 2023 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 404 of 2023 |
Local Government Act 2001 (Section 142) (Allowance for Maternity-Related Administrative Support) Regulations 2023 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 449 of 2023 |
Local Government Act 2001 (Section 142) (Security Allowance for Local Authority Members) Regulations 2023 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 562 of 2023 |
Housing (Domestic Waste Water Treatment Systems Grant under the National Inspection Plan) Regulations 2023 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 563 of 2023 |
Housing (Domestic Waste Water Treatment Systems Grant for Prioritised Areas for Action) Regulations 2023 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 564 of 2023 |
Housing (Domestic Waste Water Treatment Systems Grant for High Status Objective Catchment Areas) Regulations 2023 |
The whole instrument. |
I will make a point of order. Standing Orders provide that, where there is a substantial amendment made on Committee or Report and Final Stage, the Ceann Comhairle or Cathaoirleach of the committee, as the case may be, may direct that a new explanatory memorandum be provided. In this instance, amendment No. 84, which the Minister moved, runs to some seven pages. There are more than 60 provisions of primary legislation and more than 60 pieces of secondary legislation contained in it, all of which refer to powers to be taken from the directly elected mayor to remain with the director general. Almost all of them are new powers that were not contained in the Bill as initiated or in the Bill as discussed on Committee Stage. By any stretch, this is a substantial amendment.
It is a discretion thereafter whether to order that a new explanatory memorandum be provided or not. The discretion resides explicitly, in accordance with Standing Orders, in the Ceann Comhairle or Cathaoirleach of the committee. I assume, but I am open to a ruling from the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that her office enjoys a similar power. If so, or if the Leas-Cheann Comhairle rules that her office enjoys that power, I ask that she exercise her discretion to order that an explanatory memorandum be provided. It is important that Deputies are provided with one.
There are occasions when Bills have to be pushed through. However, I can think of only one in the time I have been in this House, which, I acknowledge, is not very long. It was the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Act 2013, when the State would have been taken to the cleaners by the markets the following morning if it had not been passed. Legislation such as this Bill could be done tomorrow or on Friday, if it needs to be done by Christmas. There is a discretion available to the Ceann Comhairle and I ask the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to rule on it. Once that is done, I would like to take my time to discuss the amendments.
I understand in relation to this matter and another Bill that the Ceann Comhairle has been in correspondence with the Deputy on the two relevant Standing Orders. Is that correct?
I have not received any ruling or determination on the matter.
I understand the Ceann Comhairle has been in contact with the Deputy and has ruled on this matter in relation to Standing Order 175 and 183.
If he has, that is news to me. If the Leas-Cheann Comhairle says he has, I am willing to accept that. It may be an oversight on my part. I have not seen his ruling. He may well have sent it and I did not see it. If that is the case, I apologise.
Does the Deputy wish to use his remaining time?
I take it the Ceann Comhairle's ruling is that he will not direct that it-----
He is not exercising his discretion. He set that out clearly in a letter.
I have not seen that letter. I apologise for that. Regardless of whether the Ceann Comhairle has sent the letter, and I accept that the decision is entirely at his discretion or that of a committee Cathaoirleach, this is no way to make law. I appreciate that the Minister of State does not think it is ideal but he is determined to get this Bill done and have everything completed. I agree with him that there is an imperative to get the Bill concluded but I simply do not understand why it has to be done in this manner, with more than 60 provisions of primary legislation and more than 60 statutory instruments all being rammed in on Report Stage without any proper discussion, analysis or examination. It does not result in good law or good law-making. It is particularly problematic in instances in which these are powers that will be reserved to an unelected official, effectively by fiat of unelected officials because nobody could say the Dáil has had the opportunity to discuss this matter adequately. Does anybody even know what these powers refer to? There is no explanatory memorandum setting out what they refer to.
This tarnishes the Bill and the law-making function of this House. That is my firm conviction. We are elected here and we get very well paid for what is a nice job but we have a constitutional requirement that we legislate for the country. Some people who grew up in time gone by, of whom I am one, grew up among people who were incredibly proud of the fact that they could elect people to make the laws for their country because they were born in a country where they could not elect people because they were poor, constituencies did not work like that and they felt laws were being made somewhere else that were not for them. The law-making function is one we could perhaps pay a little regard to every once in a while. Putting in seven pages of amendments on the last stage, even if the Ceann Comhairle can be persuaded not to exercise his discretion, is not good law-making and does not respect this House or the Constitution. On that basis, I oppose this amendment.
There is an imperative to get this legislation through. The officials have worked exceptionally hard. The workload has been intense. As we worked through the sequences, we provided that information to members of the committee and Deputy McNamara. That was in the spirit of co-operation and the work we do. I take my work as a parliamentarian very seriously. People in Limerick voted by way of plebiscite to bring in the legislation. We have always provided the information. I will press amendment No. 84. I have nothing further to say.
I do not doubt that the officials have worked very hard but this House also has a role in working very hard, which is to analyse and tease out legislation. That is not happening in this instance. I accept the Minister of State worked hard to bring forward this legislation. Given the pace at which it had progressed before the Minister of State assumed the office, I questioned if it would be progressing at all were it not for him. I congratulate him on what he has done to move this forward. That does not obviate the requirement that laws are made by the Dáil and Seanad. We have here seven pages of amendments on Report Stage without any proper explanation of what they are or why the powers should not transfer across to the directly elected mayor who, we are told, will exercise executive power.
Instead their powers should remain with the unelected director general; I do not think that is a proper basis on which to proceed, and on that basis alone I have to oppose this particular amendment.
Amendment put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 101; Níl, 19; Staon, 4.
Tá
- Andrews, Chris.
- Brady, John.
- Browne, James.
- Browne, Martin.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Colm.
- Butler, Mary.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Cahill, Jackie.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Cannon, Ciarán.
- Carroll MacNeill, Jennifer.
- Carthy, Matt.
- Chambers, Jack.
- Clarke, Sorca.
- Collins, Niall.
- Conway-Walsh, Rose.
- Costello, Patrick.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Creed, Michael.
- Cronin, Réada.
- Crowe, Cathal.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Cullinane, David.
- Daly, Pa.
- Devlin, Cormac.
- Dillon, Alan.
- Doherty, Pearse.
- Donnelly, Paul.
- Donnelly, Stephen.
- Donohoe, Paschal.
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Ellis, Dessie.
- English, Damien.
- Farrell, Alan.
- Farrell, Mairéad.
- Feighan, Frankie.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Guirke, Johnny.
- Harris, Simon.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Heydon, Martin.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Humphreys, Heather.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kerrane, Claire.
- Lahart, John.
- Lawless, James.
- Leddin, Brian.
- Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
- Madigan, Josepha.
- Martin, Catherine.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- McConalogue, Charlie.
- McEntee, Helen.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McHugh, Joe.
- Mitchell, Denise.
- Moynihan, Aindrias.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Munster, Imelda.
- Murnane O'Connor, Jennifer.
- Mythen, Johnny.
- Naughton, Hildegarde.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
- O'Brien, Darragh.
- O'Brien, Joe.
- O'Callaghan, Jim.
- O'Connor, James.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
- O'Donovan, Patrick.
- O'Gorman, Roderic.
- O'Reilly, Louise.
- O'Rourke, Darren.
- O'Sullivan, Christopher.
- O'Sullivan, Pádraig.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
- Ó Cathasaigh, Marc.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Laoghaire, Donnchadh.
- Ó Murchú, Ruairí.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- Phelan, John Paul.
- Quinlivan, Maurice.
- Rabbitte, Anne.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Ryan, Patricia.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smyth, Niamh.
- Smyth, Ossian.
- Stanley, Brian.
- Stanton, David.
- Tully, Pauline.
- Wynne, Violet-Anne.
Níl
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Cairns, Holly.
- Collins, Joan.
- Collins, Michael.
- Fitzmaurice, Michael.
- Gannon, Gary.
- Harkin, Marian.
- Kelly, Alan.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McNamara, Michael.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Nash, Ged.
- Nolan, Carol.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
- Pringle, Thomas.
- Sherlock, Sean.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Tóibín, Peadar.
Staon
- Boyd Barrett, Richard.
- Kenny, Gino.
- Murphy, Paul.
- Smith, Bríd.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Hildegarde Naughton and Cormac Devlin; Níl, Deputies Michael McNamara and Catherine Murphy.
Amendment declared carried.
Amendments Nos. 85 to 87, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 88:
In page 80, lines 24 and 25, to delete "as applied and modified by Schedule 3,".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 89:
In page 91, line 3, to delete "by reason of its not having been" and substitute "by reason of it not having been".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 90:
In page 106, line 39, to delete "paragraph" and substitute "paragraph 50".
Amendment agreed to.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendments Nos. 91 to 96, inclusive.
I move amendment No. 91:
In page 134, to delete lines 3 to 15 and substitute the following:
|
"(3) Subject to section 9 of the Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023, any reference in any other enactment to the lord mayor, mayor, chairman, deputy lord mayor, deputy mayor or vice-chairman or cognate words shall, in the case of Limerick City and County Council, where the context so requires, be read as a reference to the Príomh Chomhairleoir, or the Leas-Phríomh Chomhairleoir, of Limerick City and County Council.", |
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 92:
In page 141, to delete lines 26 to 29 and substitute the following:
|
(a) in subsection (1), "Subject to section 26 of the Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023, for every" were substituted for "For every", |
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 93:
In page 141, to delete lines 38 to 45 and substitute the following:
|
(c) in subsection (4), "or, in the case of Limerick City and County Council, the Mayor of Limerick or the director general of Limerick City and County Council in accordance with section 10 or 26, as the case may be, of the Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023" were inserted after "local authority concerned". |
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 94:
In page 144, to delete lines 31 to 40 and substitute the following:
|
"(a) shall act for and on behalf of Limerick City and County Council in relation to executive functions vested in the Mayor of Limerick by virtue of subsection (2) of section 10 of the Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 in every action or other legal proceeding whether civil or criminal, instituted by or against Limerick City and County Council, and" and |
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 95:
In page 145, to delete lines 7 to 12 and substitute the following:
|
(ii) ", or such of any functions delegated to him or her by the Mayor of Limerick under section 27 of the Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023," were inserted after "such of his or her functions", |
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 96:
In page 145, to delete lines 25 to 29 and substitute the following:
|
(i) "Without prejudice to subsection (4) of section 27 of the Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023, where a function" were substituted for "Where a function", |
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.
I move amendment No. 97:
In page 145, between lines 43 and 44, to insert the following:
|
(f) the following subsection were inserted after subsection (9): "(10) The director general of Limerick City and County Council shall consult with the Mayor of Limerick regarding a delegation made under this section to ensure that each delegated function is properly staffed in pursuit of the policy priorities of the Mayor of Limerick.". |
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendment No. 98.
I move amendment No. 98:
In page 146, to delete lines 22 to 26 and substitute the following:
|
"special adviser to the Mayor of Limerick’ means the special adviser to the Mayor of Limerick appointed under section 19 of the Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023;". |
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.
I move amendment No. 99:
In page 146, to delete lines 27 to 31 and substitute the following:
|
29. |
Section 174 |
Section shall, in addition to subsection (8) applying to the director general by virtue of section 26 and to the Príomh Chomhairleoir by virtue of section 23, apply as if the following subsection were substituted for subsection (7): |
Amendment agreed to.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendments Nos. 100 to 102, inclusive.
I move amendment No. 100:
In page 149, to delete lines 5 to 12 and substitute the following:
|
"(4) Where a function would normally be dealt with by the Mayor of Limerick, the function shall be delegated by him or her in accordance with section 27 of the Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023, after disclosure under subsection (2).", and |
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 101:
In page 151, to delete lines 24 to 38 and substitute the following:
|
"(aa) Where a report referred to in subparagraph (iiia) of subsection (3)(a) is furnished to a local authority it shall be considered by the Mayor of Limerick, who shall decide on such action to be taken as may be considered appropriate in all the circumstances including, notwithstanding section 19(7) of the Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023, termination of appointment of the special adviser concerned.", and |
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 102:
In page 152, to delete lines 33 to 41 and substitute the following:
|
(a) ", or section 58 of the Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023," were inserted after "section 34 or 146" in subparagraph (3) of paragraph 1, (b) ", or section 58 of the Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023," were inserted after "section 34 or 146" in subparagraph (3) of paragraph 7, and |
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration and passed.