Amendment No. 1 arises out of the instruction to committee motion. Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 93, 94 and 144 are related. Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 144 are consequential on amendments Nos. 93 and 94. Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 93, 94 and 144 may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill 2023: Committee Stage
SECTION 1
Government amendment No. 1:
In page 10, to delete lines 1 and 2 and substitute the following:
“(2) (a) This Act, other than Part 5 and sections 65, 66 and 67, and the Local Government Acts 1925 to 2023 may be cited together as the Local Government Acts 1925 to 2024.
(b) Section 65 and the Housing Acts 1966 to 2021 may be cited together as the Housing Acts 1966 to 2024.
(c) Section 66 and the Housing Finance Agency Acts 1981 to 2007 may be cited together as the Housing Finance Agency Acts 1981 to 2024, and shall be read together as one.
(d) Section 67 and the National Treasury Management Agency Acts 1990 to 2022 may be cited together as the National Treasury Management Agency Acts 1990 to 2024, and shall be construed together as one.”.
I thank the House. This is important legislation, and I very much look forward to engaging with Members on it. We have an election due to take place on the same day as the local and European elections.
I look forward to working with the House and enjoying its co-operation in getting the Bill through as expeditiously as possibly, although with a proper debate on the Bill, obviously.
I thank the Acting Chairperson for his introduction. These amendments are miscellaneous or consequential to the Long Title. Two miscellaneous amendments are proposed to be inserted in Part 8. The first of these amends the Housing Finance Agency Act 1981 to allow for the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform, with regard to Housing Finance Agency borrowing, to increase the statutory borrowing limits from €10 billion to €12 billion. The second is an amendment to the National Treasury Management Agency (Amendment) Act 2014 to permit the Minister for Finance to direct the National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA, to provide the proceeds of the disposal of directed investments to the Land Development Agency, LDA, and to include the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform in respect of the provision of funds from the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund to the LDA.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 amend the collective citation and commencement provisions of section 1 to take account of the miscellaneous provisions being added and the various Acts being amended by the Bill. Amendment No. 93 amends sections 10(1) and 10(3) of the Housing Finance Agency Act 1981, which relates to Housing Finance Agency borrowing. It solidifies the requirements for the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform for borrowings. In the interest of the Exchequer, it is appropriate to include a legal requirement to secure in the interest of the Minister. The change will be consistent with similar provisions on the Statute Book, such as those relating to borrowings by Uisce Éireann. Action 18.5 of Housing for All requires that my Department legislates to increase the borrowing capacity of the Housing Finance Agency to €12 billion with a review in two years. Housing for All was launched in late 2021. The intention is to support the local government sector in land acquisition and the delivery of social and affordable homes. This amendment provides that the Housing Finance Agency is sufficiently financed in this quarter to carry out its functions without disruption in 2024. Officials in my Department have received a report from the New Economy and Recovery Authority, NewERA, providing analysis and observation in respect of the financial and commercial aspects of the proposed increase in the statutory borrowing limit. This report has been shared with the Minister for Finance, who has given agreement to increase the borrowing limit.
Amendment No. 94 amends section 42B of the National Treasury Management Agency (Amendment) Act 2014. It relates to the provision of funds from the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund to the LDA. The amendment provides a requirement for the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform for the provision of funds from the fund to the LDA and for the payment of moneys to the LDA from the proceeds of disposal of a directed investment. It further provides for the payment of moneys to the LDA from the disposal of directed investments to be limited to €1.25 billion.
Finally, amendment No. 144 is a technical amendment to the Long Title to ensure it reflects these amendments to the Housing Finance Agency Act 1981 and the National Treasury Management Agency (Amendment) Act 2014. Given the critical roles of the Housing Finance Agency and the LDA, I ask Members to support the amendments.
The Minister of State is very welcome. I wish to express a little frustration regarding these amendments. Sinn Féin is not opposing them but we did ask for a briefing note on them. Even from what the Minister of State has just said, there is quite a lot involved here. We did not get such a briefing note. That is not a good way to go about doing business in terms of tucking these amendments into an important Bill principally dealing with another matter. I do not know whether the Minister of State wishes to comment in that regard. It is frustrating. We should, at least, have been provided with a briefing note before discussing these amendments. We did not get one. It is poor form.
We have not been given a briefing note. I do not have an issue with most of the amendments but if we had been provided with a briefing, we might have had an opportunity to elaborate on or discuss the fact that we are again facilitating moneys coming from the disposal of directed assets and so forth going to the LDA. One of the gaps, which will come up repeatedly in the debate on the directly elected mayor, is the question of resources, including at local and local authority levels. This is a set of measures relating to funding going to the LDA, assets being disposed of and other matters.
It would have been a potential opportunity for some form of stream of revenue or some signal in terms of increasing or supporting the resources potentially available at local level. Because we are only getting the detail of it now I am only looking to highlight it and am not trying to amend those mechanisms. It is something to highlight because I know we are going to end up discussing the need for resources so that this mayor can actually effect impact, yet the financial measures that are being added in are all working around local authorities rather than through them.
For the benefit of Members, there was a briefing note sent that I got, anyway, and I think most Members may have got. Admittedly it was sent at 12.47 so the Senator might not have spotted it yet. I am just noticing it in my own email so I am just letting you know that it is probably in your email if it is in my email, but I appreciate the point you made.
That was 20 minutes ago.
It was 39 minutes ago at this stage. I am not defending, I am just making the point. You can have a look at it now for the rest of the afternoon or whatever.
I appreciate that. To all Senators, to Senators Gavan, Higgins, Fitzpatrick and Maria Byrne, I appreciate the late time. These amendments are not related to the directly elected mayor, DEM. They are being brought in because there is an immediate need to increase funding around housing both to the LDA and to increase the borrowing capacity of the Housing Finance Agency. I have looked for more detail. I will read out a further briefing which I will circulate to you but it is self-explanatory.
The LDA's 2024 to 2028 business plan proposed delivery of approximately 14,000 homes by 2028. To deliver housing on this scale requires a significant increase in funding due to increase in ambition and a change in the balance of subsidised versus market rate housing to be provided by the LDA since its inception. There is currently provision in the National Treasury Management Agency Act to allow them to borrow up to €1.25 billion, however, due to changes in prevailing interest rates it is now unviable for the LDA to seek significant debt funding.
The LDA is also approaching the cap provided for the NTMA Act of €1.25 billion in equity. It is currently in the advanced stages of negotiating for numerous large-scale housing projects which will provide hundreds of social and affordable units. However, without an increase to the ceiling of equity allowed under the Act, they will not be able to commit to any further projects without an increase in equity provision. It is now a matter of urgency. That is the reason this particular Bill was used. It is the Bill that is coming before the Houses with immediate impact. As such, delivery of their business plan will require an increase in equity in the LDA beyond the €1.25 billion provided for in the NTMA Act. The LDA board cannot agree to enter these commitments unless they are confident that the LDA has access to the funds necessary to meet the costs of these contracts as they arise.
Cabinet agreed in December to increase the equity provision in the LDA from €1.25 billion to €2.5 billion. That was on 20 December. As such, an amendment to the NTMA Act is urgently required to increase the funds provided to the LDA. The amendment is also required to avoid impacting the LDA delivery pipeline of housing 2024. It is very much around housing. I appreciate the points Senators have raised. I will circulate that note. These are very simply housing activation measures on both accounts, increasing borrowing capacity. The increase in borrowing capacity of the Housing Finance Agency was specifically signalled in Housing for All, where action 18.5 states that there will be a review after two years to increase the Housing Finance Agency's borrowing capacity to €12 billion. That will bring a large number of additional homes. I ask that Members support these amendments which are very much around housing activation.
I appreciate the Minister of State setting out the detail. I think he has accepted the point that the short notice was not acceptable. Clearly those are amendments that we are very happy to support, given the housing emergency that we have across the State.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 2:
In page 10, line 3, to delete “This Act” and substitute “This Act, other than sections 66 and 67,".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 10, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:
"(4) Notwithstanding subsection (3), the Minister shall commence the sections of this Bill necessary to the holding of an election for Mayor and for the functioning of that office within 3 months of the passing of this Act.".
My Civil Engagement Group colleague Senator Alice-Mary Higgins has taken the lead on these amendments and is here to argue the case for them in detail. In fairness, there is no better person for the job. Unfortunately, I will not be able to stay for the whole debate. I wish I could but I have another commitment. I feel very passionate about these amendments and their goal of empowering and revitalising local government. The people of Limerick have voted-----
We are dealing with amendment No. 3.
Yes. I am speaking to these amendments.
The people of Limerick have voted for a directly elected mayor, and this is a choice that should be offered to the people of every city in this country. It is clearly better to have an elected official entrusted with the powers available to local authorities than unaccountable officials. In Dublin, we have seen how council CEOs can be totally out of step with the attitudes and wishes of the people they serve and how little recourse dissatisfied residents have when they feel their interests are not being served by decision-makers. Transferring powers that are overly concentrated from an unelected executive to an elected executive is a modest victory for local democracy, and that is why our amendments are focused on making the mayor accountable to the members of the local authority and expanding the influence of the latter.
At the national level, we operate a parliamentary system whose superiority over more presidential systems is evident. Power is not overly concentrated and parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive's decision-making is more considered and impactful. We should be recreating the strengths of our system at local level and creating a vibrant local democracy in which councillors can make decisions for the benefit of their constituents and communities. We need to give local authorities more powers and explore additional revenue-raising measures that could be used to ensure they are adequately funded. In addition to ensuring they are adequately funded, we need to make sure councillors are adequately paid for what is, for many, a full-time job.
I do not want to interrupt but-----
I am speaking to the amendments.
This is not a Second Stage debate; it is Committee Stage, so the Senator should address amendment No. 3.
I hear what the Acting Chairman is saying. Like all politicians, local representatives need proper protections and supports so they can cope in a political environment that is increasingly fraught and dangerous.
Those of us in this House who are members of the Seanad Public Consultation Committee are having a series of meetings on the future of local democracy. We have heard from many councillors and will hear from many more about their work and the challenges they face. People who get involved in local government do not do so for the glamour, as I am sure the Chair and the Minister of State well know. It is not a glamorous job by any means. It is not well paid and people do not become councillors to boost their careers.
I did it for 12 and a half years, so I am quite aware of it.
I know the Acting Chairman is aware of that. They get involved because they care about their communities and have ideas to make change. Local councillors work so hard under challenging and frustrating conditions to serve the people of their areas. If given the support they need and properly empowered, councillors and directly elected mayors could represent the future of Irish local democracy and be transformative. I really hope the Minister of State will accept our amendments because they are very important.
I remind all Members that we are on Committee Stage. We had a very comprehensive Second Stage debate. I ask Senator Higgins to speak on amendment No. 3.
I apologise, as we believed amendments Nos. 3 to 7, inclusive, were grouped.
They are not. Amendment No. 3 is being dealt with on its own.
Some of my colleagues have commented on amendments Nos. 4 to 7.
Amendments Nos. 4 to 7, inclusive, are grouped.
I will be brief on amendment No. 3. This amendment seeks to ensure that the democratic mandate for directly elected mayor given in 2019 by the people of Limerick will be respected and properly reflected and that an election for the office will take place this year. The people have been waiting a long time, since 2019. The amendment provides that the necessary sections of the legislation on holding a mayoral election must be commenced within three months of the Bill's passage. This is to ensure no delay in the election and that it will take place this year. Unfortunately, we passed Bills in the past but did not commence relevant sections, which can result in another phase of limbo. I hope the Minister of State will be able to assure us the sections on the mayoral election will be commenced within the three months we suggest.
I thank the Senators. Amendment No. 3 is in the name of the Civil Engagement Group and relates to the provisions for holding the mayoral election and the structures associated with the office and would require those sections to be commenced within three months of the passing of the Act. I recognise the intent of the amendment. As a former councillor, and one who was granted the privilege of becoming a Member of this House by councillors, I am aware of the phenomenal work they do. I have enormous respect for councillors. They are exceptionally busy at the moment. I wish Senator Gavan the best in the European election.
Since I have come into this particular position, I have looked to progress the Limerick mayoral legislation as efficiently as possible. It is something to which I am very committed. The Taoiseach gave me this issue as a priority. I am familiar with it. My colleague, Senator Maria Byrne, was the director of elections for the Government in our local area and we are all very much for it. The Bill was published last August. When I came into office, I had to work to get the Bill published. The officials sitting behind me and all the staff in the Department did phenomenal work.
The Government announced the mayoral election would be held on the same day as the local and European elections in June. There is, as Senators will be aware, a window between 6 and 9 June. The announcement was made to provide the people of Limerick with certainty on the date of the election and to allow them to plan even while the legislation was still be to enacted. I want to get this legislation enacted so the people have absolute certainty. I was fully aware when I came into office that the big enemy was time. I wanted to ensure we had a robust Bill that was fit for purpose. I feel we have now so we want to get it over the line.
I will speak to a few technical points and I understand the intent of the amendment. The structure of the Bill means that the commencement of sections alone would not achieve the intent of this amendment. It is something we examined carefully. For example, paragraph 6(1) in Schedule 2 provides that the Minister may make an order to fix a date for the first mayoral election with that order to be published in Iris Oifigiúil. However, I would like to assure Members that the legislation will be commenced in good time. I cannot presume because it will be a matter for the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, but we would be looking to set the date relatively early to allow for certainty.
Establishment of the office of the mayor of Limerick under section 8 likewise is done by ministerial order. The Bill provides for the establishment of structures for the functioning of the office once the election occurs and the new mayor takes office on the vesting day. Both commencement orders and ministerial orders allow the necessary flexibility to ensure that relevant provisions may be brought into operation, or given effect to, in the correct sequence. We are looking to bring these in as quickly as possible but in a structured way to ensure that the office of the directly elected mayor works in a structured and efficient manner. That flexibility will also allow the preparation for the establishment of the office of mayor, the necessary structures and key roles, and so on. For example, under section 33, the Limerick Project Ireland 2040 delivery board will be established on commencement and this board is chaired by the mayor. It would be important to align the commencement of this section to a time when the mayor is elected and in office, and thereby in a position to chair the board. An early commencement could be problematic.
I understand the intent of the amendment but there may be unintended consequences. When we were looking through the Bill, we were always looking to commence the sections rather than to leave them sitting there and not commenced. I am on the same page in respect of the import of what the Senators have put forward but we cannot accept the implementation of the amendment because of the structured approach within the Bill. Everything is done to get the commencements to synchronise with the mayor coming in and in a structured way. In those circumstances, I do not intend to accept this amendment as I do not believe it is necessary and may have unintended consequences. I thank the Senators and their colleagues in the Civil Engagement Group for sharing my commitment to passing the Bill as soon as possible.
I thank the Minister of State for his contribution. Many of us have been councillors, including Senator Maria Byrne. Was Senator Gavan a councillor?
He was not, but the Minister of State certainly was, as was I. We all know just how hard councillors work. Senator Black certainly made some valid points in her contribution about how hard councillors work. I do not know of a single councillor who ever went into it for the money, title, status or the possibility of wearing the chain, albeit that some people are fortunate enough to get that opportunity. They work exceptionally hard. We all owe a debt of gratitude to them.
Senator Higgins may go ahead.
I accept the Minister of State's bona fides, of course. We were not seeking to just commence some sections, but we wanted to make sure there were not sections uncommenced. I am accepting his piece on that, but my understanding is that the intention is that the election would take place in June or this year.
The Cabinet made a decision when the Bill was published that it would be held on the same day as the local elections. Obviously, that date has to be fully determined, but it is a window between 6 June and 9 June.
Okay. I thank the Minister of State very much. Based on that, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 2 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 7
Amendments Nos. 4 to 7, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 12, line 31, to delete “3 years” and substitute “2 years”.
Unfortunately, I was in Strasbourg when the Second Stage of this Bill was being discussed. However, my colleague, Senator Warfield, did express a degree of frustration that many of us in Limerick feel with regard to the lack of ambition regarding the content of the Bill. I say that respectfully. I acknowledge that fact that the Minister of State has worked hard to get this Bill through in a timely fashion. I have to admit that we are very puzzled about why it has taken four years, but I acknowledge that since the Minister of State came into office, he has been trying to push it as hard as he can.
What has not happened from our perspective, however, is that I do not think the people of Limerick want a mayor who has effectively very few additional functional powers, and I am afraid that is what we have ended up with. Rather than get into a back-and-forth about that, because we will be dealing with a number of amendments as we go through the afternoon, what is particularly important is that the Minister of State takes on board the expressions of concern, not just from Sinn Féin but from a range of others, both in the Dáil and Seanad.
My colleague, Deputy Quinlivan, was very clear on this. We really felt that this Bill had the opportunity to offer so much more to a democratically elected mayor that was not gifted. Indeed, I gather that one of the key reasons for that is that existing Departments just did not want to delegate powers to an elected mayor of Limerick. That is the crux of a lot of this. It is therefore in that context that we are asking for the review to be brought forward from three years to two years. We feel there is not enough scope here for a democratically elected mayor to really make his or her impact to the fullest extent. We were afraid in that respect then it would denigrate the position in terms of people's enthusiasm for it. The very least we ask the Minister of State to do, and I have to echo Deputy Quinlivan's frustrations that amendments were not taken on board in the Dáil, is to make this very simple change that rather than waiting three years, we have a review of the position after two years. The reason for that, which I hope the Minister of State will appreciate, is that we do it in a timely fashion so that by the time the second mayoral election comes around, that review will have been completed and, more important, legislative changes made to enhance the role of the mayor. It is a simple change. It would show an awful lot of goodwill from the Minister of State if he was willing to take it on board. Let us move this review forward by just 12 months.
I thank Senator Gavan. The Minister of State to respond.
Does the Acting Chairperson wish me to respond to amendments Nos. 4 to 7?
Yes, amendments Nos. 4 to 7, please.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 in the names of Sinn Féin Senators Gavan, Warfield and Boylan are similar to the amendments tabled in the Dáil. They propose to reduce the review period for this Bill, when enacted, from three years after the office of the mayor is established to two years.
I fully agree that the operation and effectiveness of the legislation should be subject to a review when a mayor has been in situ for a period of time. The Bill provides for such a review.
As I said in the Dáil, then comes the question of what is a reasonable period of time to allow for bedding down of a new structure. The report of the implementation advisory group recommended a review at the end of the third year of the mayoral term. It was chaired by Tim O’Connor and, by common census, did a serious body of work. Even in that context, it recommended three years. Looking at the various points put across, the pre-legislative scrutiny report from the Oireachtas joint committee on housing suggested a review after a period of only one year. Indeed, a review after two years is still a relatively short period. It is important that enough time be given to allow the integration of these new arrangements in Limerick City and County Council.
I remain convinced that a three-year period is the proper time period for a review. It is balanced. In the meantime, the Limerick mayoral and government consultative forum will also review and advise on how the new structures are operating. There is nothing to stop a review. A Minister - whoever that is - or the Government could commence a review before the two-year period. It may arise during the consultative interaction between the mayor and the Government and the Ministers of the day that they push to see a review earlier. The thing is we learned a lot from the implementation advisory group. If the situation arose that we needed someone, such as the implementation group, to do a further body of work, we want to allow sufficient time.
The one thing I have learned during this process is that we want something that reflects the wishes of the people. It is the one thing I have been true to in the legislation. When I came in and was starting a body of work, my reference point was the people and what was put to the people, and what was put to the people is fully reflected in legislation. One may like to see more powers to the mayor but this is what the people voted on democratically and as a democrat I have to abide by that wish.
I remain convinced that three years, on balance, is the best time period. However, there is nothing to prevent it happening before the two-year period. There is a big difference between two and three years. It is not a huge length of time but it gives that bedding down period for anyone coming into the office. There is no point in us doing a review too early because there would not be value to it, and it cannot be done too late either. A review should be done in the third year.
With that, I cannot accept the Senator’s amendment in this area.
Amendment No. 6 from the civil engagement group proposes to narrow the consultation.
Amendment No. 6 is grouped, so the Minister of State can make his contribution now and we will let Senator Higgins come in afterwards.
I think it would be more appropriate for Senator Higgins to make her contribution now.
Senator Higgins can make a contribution and the Minister of State will come back in afterwards.
If it is okay with the Minister of State, I will contribute now for efficiency. Regarding my colleague’s amendment and the two years to three years, there are certain aspects we will come to later in the Bill that I am concerned may need a review, particularly the Schedule and the number of powers that are out of reach of the mayor. I think issues with the curtailment of powers for the mayor due to the excessive number of items on the Schedule that are still given to the director general will arise earlier than two years, frankly. We want to avoid public disappointment as mayors endeavour to do areas and are told it is the director general’s remit. The earlier we identify a problem such as that and address it, the better. We want to make sure that new legislation, if required, is in place before the next round of mayoral elections.
Amendment No. 6 is important. I hope this is an oversight. I genuinely hope the Minister of State will be able to accept this amendment.
We see people who go forward in good faith and who want to be local councillors and to contribute but who find that they hit a wall and come up against limits in terms of their powers, including their financial powers. They feel that they are in a position where they are failing, not through their own fault, but through the limitations placed on them to deliver what they know is needed for their local communities. We have seen the frustration of many councillors regarding that issue, and we have also, sadly, seen many brilliant, capable people leaving local councils because they felt that they could not deliver as they would like to.
There is a step forward in having a mayor but it is happening within the context of a locally elected council. In terms of amendment No. 6, I again genuinely hope that this is a matter of oversight and can be addressed. Amendment No. 7 is a little bit more ambitious but I believe we should be more ambitious. I hope the Minister of State might also consider supporting it.
Amendment No. 6 refers to the text of the Bill as it is now in terms of the review. This states that when there is a review of how everything is going the Minister would be consulting "with the Mayor, Limerick City and County Council, the consultative forum and such other persons as the Minister considers appropriate". There is a big piece missing here, however. I refer to the elected members. Effectively, then, my proposed amendment, which is very small, simply seeks to insert "the elected council of", so that text in the Bill regarding the review would then read that the Minister would be consulting "with the Mayor, the elected council of Limerick City and County Council, the consultative forum and such other persons as the Minister considers appropriate". This proposed change is intended to ensure that the elected members are consulted with and not just, for example, the director general.
I will turn to what I imagine the intention was here. Everybody spoke about the importance of councillors, their perspectives and what they can bring to the table in this regard. It would certainly be a very poor review if one of the key elements of local democracy, namely, the elected councillors themselves, were not a part of the review. The text of the Bill, as it is phrased now, however, does not provide a guarantee that they are going to be a part of the review. I presume and hope this is an oversight and that this amendment is one the Minister of State is willing to accept in this regard.
Officially, amendment No. 6 provides that in the review of the operation and effectiveness of the Act under section 7, the Minister will be obliged to consult with the elected council of Limerick City and County Council. The amendment seeks to ensure that elected councillors are consulted as to the operation of the Act and that it does not end up being a case of just the director general or other officials within the council being listened to. This is important.
Amendment No. 7, which is also in this grouping, seeks to address an issue of long-standing concern, which is the power afforded to local councillors. We know, and it is very well documented, that the executive decision-making at local government level has for too long become quite undemocratic. The model we have currently does little to foster proper community empowerment or to strengthen local democracy. Last October, the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe unanimously adopted a report that found Ireland to be compliant with only eight of the 20 principles in the European Charter of Local Self-Government.
Some of the findings are very important in this context. The report found that Irish local authorities had limited democratic decision-making powers. It highlighted the imbalance of power between the elected councillors and the chief executives in local authorities and the democratic deficit that created. The lack of financial autonomy was identified as a key obstacle to effective local self-government. Indeed, there was a further highlighting of the fact that local authorities do not manage an appropriately substantial share of public matters under their own responsibilities. It found that Ireland was not compliant with the principle of subsidiarity, which requires decisions to be taken at the closest point to the citizen.
I am highlighting this because our approach needs to be one that is comprehensive but we currently lack the real ambition to transform local government and give it the powers and resources needed to deliver sustainable communities. One issue is that local authorities in Ireland have extremely limited revenue-raising powers. In many cases, elected councillors have little or no opportunity to decide on discretionary spending. Again according to the European Charter of Local Self-Government, at least a part of the financial resources of local authorities should derive from local taxes and charges. We are an outlier in this regard. I have somewhat excessive notes in this regard about the situations pertaining in Finland, Sweden and Spain. Rather than going into detail on each of these examples, I will just say that there are autonomies and rights in all those countries in relation to measures in this context.
This is why our amendment No. 7 simply states that, "In conducting a review under this section, the Minister shall examine the manner in which the powers afforded to the elected council intersect with those of the Mayor and shall look to ways in which the powers of the elected council, including powers in terms of revenue-raising measures, could be increased". In Sweden, municipalities have the power in relation to revenue-raising, while in Spain, they have autonomy. Indeed, participatory budgeting is taking place in some parts of Spain at local level. In Greece, local authorities have the power to establish regulatory Acts and fees, contributions and entitlements. All of these are real powers at local level. In conducting the review, therefore, I ask that there would be an examination of how the mayor intersects with the local council and how the wider question of resources is addressed.
We talked about those people who stand in local elections because they want to make a contribution at local level and the incredible work done by these local councillors. Sadly, we also know about another aspect of this context.
I thank the Civil Engagement Group for tabling amendment No. 6, which proposes to narrow the consultation on the review of the Act from consultation with Limerick City and County Council to consultation with only the elected council of Limerick City and County Council.
I am seeking to ensure the inclusion of the elected members because currently there is no guarantee of their inclusion.
When we talk about Limerick City and County Council, we are talking primarily about the elected council but also the officials in the council as well, and the mayor. It is an inclusive-----
It is all-encompassing.
That is correct.
It does not state that. Is the Minister of State guaranteeing that such reviews will include them?
Yes, absolutely.
It would be useful if that could be specified.
How can we talk about Limerick City and County Council without including the elected members? We cannot. Equally, in the spirit of co-operation, it is important to include the officials on the council as well, and also to include the mayor.
Up to now we have have a two-pillar system consisting of the elected members and the CEO, manager, or whatever term one wants to use. It will be a three-pillar system. We will have the elected members, the director general, similar to the Secretary General of a Department, and then we will have the mayor.
I was absolutely determined in the legislation not to interfere in any way with the reserved powers of the elected members. I have maintained them. What we have done is devolved powers from the CEO to the mayor. I am adamant on that. I will go through the notes and then we can come back to the point.
I accept the intention of the amendment but section 7(2) caters for that and offers more. I assure the Senator that the elected members will be included in the consultation. Let me reassure Members that this is absolutely within the provision as currently drafted. They are key stakeholders in this reform that we are embarking on, and critical to its success. Likewise, the director general and the executive are important. I would not want to exclude any of the three pillars from the review. The provision as it stands includes the elected members.
Amendment No. 7 seeks to look for ways to increase the powers of elected members in general and, in particular, for revenue-raising purposes. A key principle in the development of this Bill is that it does not take away any reserved functions. When I came in, that is something I was adamant would not happen. Once one steps inside the chamber, the reserved powers of councillors remain. The mayor becomes an additional member of the council. It is chaired by one of the members of the other 40 and there is a deputy speaker as well. It is based on the model used in New York. It was the model that was put forward specifically by the Association of Irish Local Government, AILG. Reserved functions are consistent across all local authorities in Ireland and I cannot use this Bill to carve out a special arrangement for Limerick. This Bill is about the mayor. The Senator made reference to the report from the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe. I visited Strasbourg and spoke to the congress. I acknowledge that we have a centralised system but it is an evolutionary process.
The congress welcomed very much the directly-elected mayor Bill coming for Limerick. That was the democratic wish of the people of Limerick. Side by side with that were plebiscites in Waterford and Cork on the same day that they were rejected by 51% to 49%. The proposal for Limerick was accepted by 52% versus 48%. I am also conscious a significant proportion of the population did not vote for it, so it is important this works. Limerick is the test case, so we have to get it right. The democratic wish of the people must be accepted, but we must make certain this works. Cities like Bristol and Liverpool are reversing their decisions on democratically-elected mayors as we speak. It is something we must get right and the fact I am a TD for Limerick City, and proud to be, gives an added dimension for me that we must get this to work.
Regarding the possibility of revenue-raising, this was discussed in the Dáil in the context of the mayor. There is nothing to prevent the mayor considering new sources of income or preparing a report on such matters for consideration by others. That is specifically in the consultative forum section of the Bill. Once again, I am going back to what was put to the people in the plebiscite. For that reason I do not consider it appropriate or necessary to include such provisions in legislation and for that reason I cannot accept either amendment No. 6 or No. 7, or, for the sake of clarity, Nos. 4 or 5.
Let us work through the timeline as the Minister of State proposes it. As he proposes it, a review will commence three years into the new mayorship. I am going to take a wild guess, but face it, no reviews I am familiar with take less than six months and probably take a year. Under the most optimistic of circumstances, that would leave one year in the lifetime of a Government to implement the recommendations from that review. As the Minister of State and I both know, that means those recommendations will not be implemented in the lifetime of that Government. This Bill is living proof of that as it has taken four years to come to fruition, although I appreciate it is a complex Bill. My point, which is not meant in a political sense but in a very practical one, is the review period as the Minister of State proposes it means any changes will not be enacted by the time the second mayor is elected. That is the reality. Why would the Government choose that?
I will let Senator Higgins in and then the Minister of State can respond to both Senators.
I will move backwards. The Minister of State mentioned evolution and with amendment No. 7 we were attempting to signal the next steps needed in evolution. However, we have to be very honest about local authority powers because we have not been seeing evolution in the last number of years. What we have seen is an extraordinary roll backwards with respect to powers. We have seen it in planning Bill after planning Bill and we have seen it with different aspects of legislation. We have seen the erosion of powers again and again, beginning with the abolition of the town councils, which was a very unfortunate decision and a backward step. I agree we need to be looking at evolution but we are in a context where we have had many backward steps. I acknowledge bringing in a mayor is a forward step, but I am hoping we would send signals on the next forward step and that is what No. 7 was endeavouring to do.
I must come back to the Minister of State on No. 6. I accept his bona fides that his intention is to provide for both, but to be really clear, the Bill does not say that and the present Minister of State may not be the Minister of State in three years' time. Things should always be very clear in the legislation so whomsoever may be a Minister at that time has no capacity to ignore it. There may be a difficult and obstreperous council in future and we might have a Minister who says he or she would prefer to avoid it. I certainly am not seeking to exclude the officials and the directors general.
Maybe the wording needs to be returned to on Report Stage but I would also urge the Minister of State to come back then with an amendment that clarifies the intention he stated that it will and shall include. Right now he is saying Limerick City and County Council obviously includes the elected representatives but that is not our experience. We have actually seen many, many cases where engagement with councils has effectively been engagement with officials and when it does not necessarily include the elected members. Part of that erosion of local democracy that we have seen is that the State talks to its employees at local level rather than speaking to the elected officials. For the peace of mind of both of us, and for clarity so that this is as good a piece of legislation as it can be and should be, it does need to be clarified. I am happy not to press this amendment if it may have the inadvertent effect of excluding the director general, that is not my intention, but I will be bringing it back on Report Stage and I urge the Minister of State to bring his own amendment, a very small clarifying amendment, to make it very clear, as the Minister of State has stated today, that there will be those three pillars, namely the mayor, the elected members and, indeed, such officials as are appropriate.
First, if Senator Gavan goes to section 7 of the Bill, it provides that the Minister “shall, not later than 3 months after the end of that period of 3 years, or on the completion of the review, whichever is the earlier, make a report, in writing”. The report has to be made, if he wants to go with his absolute, three years and three months after the mayor is elected. Second, it can be done. I would certainly hope that it would commence before that. If you have to produce a report within three years and three months after the mayor comes in, by definition you will have to start the work on that long before that date. I want to allow the time. The IAG report was a major benefit to the legislation. It brought in all the stakeholders. People may have some areas on which they do not agree but I want to allow that window to ensure that it is robust. I take the point the Senator is making but I still hold that the IAG itself recommended three years. That was something that came from a wide-ranging stakeholders group in Limerick on the Bill and I am still not minded to accept.
Turning to Senator Higgins, this Bill is about the mayor of Limerick. It is not necessarily about the wider issue. That is something we are always looking at. One thing I have looked to ensure is that the reserve powers of the councillors, like anywhere else in the country, remain intact in Limerick City and County Council. Instead of the CEO, the mayor will bring it but it will be voted on as a reserved function of the councillors. Development plans will be brought by the mayor but they will be a reserved function of the council chamber. It will be chaired by one of the other 40 councillors. The deputy speaker will be one of the other 40 councillors. That is something that came specifically out of the IAG report. The Senator makes a good general point but we believe it is not relevant to this specific legislation.
On Senator Higgins’ core point about elected members, it has to be that the councillors have primacy. As it stands the CEO is responsible to the members. The executive is responsible to the CEO and it goes down along. Under the Bill, the mayor is responsible to the house.
When I say "the house", I mean the chamber and councillors. It still comes back to the chamber. In the round, Limerick City and County Council is the correct forum. That means a review is being done. Every single component of the council, namely, the mayor, elected chamber and executive, is included.
The Senator referred to bringing back a report. It is something I will consider. We feel it is robust as it is and we do not want to interfere with anything that might provide some degree of ambiguity around the area. The intent of the Senator's point is exactly what we believe we have provided for in section 7(2) of the Bill.
I do not want to prolong this unnecessarily. I accept the Minister of State's point in terms of three years and three months. However, he and I both know that if a report comes back three years and three months into a term, the likelihood of the recommended changes being made into actual legislative changes by the time the five years is up is slim, to say the least. That is my concern.
Some of us on this side of the Chamber do not think the Minister of State has been ambitious enough, in particular in terms of mayoral powers. That was a theme in the Dáil. The Minister of State may disagree on that and he is entitled to his opinion. My point is that if a review acknowledges that more powers are needed, the Minister of State's timeline will not allow those powers to be put in place by the time the second mayoral election takes place. That is why I am concerned. We all know this. I am sure all of us, including the Minister of State, have been frustrated by how long it takes legislation to get through both Houses. It takes a long time.
The reality is that we have a committee system here, which is really good. It will have to examine the report. I think the Minister of State will acknowledge that. That has to be factored into the timeline. Can the Minister of State tell me how these changes will be made before the second mayoral election? I cannot see how it can happen.
The Senator is correct, in that the report has to be put before both Houses of the Oireachtas, which is the correct approach. It will obviously feed into the committee system as well.
The Bill is true to what the people voted on, in term of powers. That is my abiding principle. The mayor will now bring forward a budget of €600 million to his or her colleagues in the chamber. He or she may well bring forward all development plans currently brought forward by the CEO. Furthermore, in Limerick and other areas, there are a number of DACs, such as Limerick 2030 and so forth. They currently report to the CEO and will now instead report to the mayor.
For the first time ever, the mayor has statutory rights and powers to bring all stakeholders in the region together in terms of the mayoral programme. Furthermore, the mayor can bring forward whatever stakeholders he or she wishes in respect of project Limerick 2030. He or she will automatically have a plenary session twice a year with the Government of the day, and at any other times either party wishes it to happen.. Under the original Bill, that was at the behest of the Minister. I have changed that.
In terms of overall powers, the Bill is reasonably good, sound and very much true to what the public voted on. If the mayor and council push for a review to be carried out before three years and three months, I expect that would happen. The Bill is positive and is an activation measure. It is not about restricting the growth of the role of the mayor. It is a start.
There is no reason the review could not be carried out prior to that period, but it was recommended in the IALG report after careful consideration and I would not like it to be so restrictive that, if it were done within two years, the first two years would become about the review. I want the first number of years to be about the mayor getting the mayoral programme up and running. They are getting €8 million for that from the Exchequer, which will bring up to €40 million in additional Government funding to Limerick. That is a very important point.
Accordingly, I am not minded to accept the amendment. I understand where it is coming from and I accept the Senator’s bona fides on it but, on balance, I am comfortable with what we are proposing in the legislation.
We will agree to disagree.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 11; Níl, 21.
Tá
- Boyhan, Victor.
- Boylan, Lynn.
- Craughwell, Gerard P.
- Gavan, Paul.
- Higgins, Alice-Mary.
- Hoey, Annie.
- Keogan, Sharon.
- Moynihan, Rebecca.
- Ruane, Lynn.
- Sherlock, Marie.
- Warfield, Fintan.
Níl
- Ahearn, Garret.
- Byrne, Malcolm.
- Byrne, Maria.
- Carrigy, Micheál.
- Casey, Pat.
- Cassells, Shane.
- Conway, Martin.
- Currie, Emer.
- Daly, Paul.
- Doherty, Regina.
- Dolan, Aisling.
- Gallagher, Robbie.
- Horkan, Gerry.
- Kyne, Seán.
- McGahon, John.
- McGreehan, Erin.
- Murphy, Eugene.
- O'Donovan, Denis.
- O'Reilly, Joe.
- O'Reilly, Pauline.
- Ward, Barry.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Paul Gavan and Lynn Boylan; Níl, Senators Robbie Gallagher and Joe O'Reilly.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 12, line 33, to delete “3 years” and substitute “2 years”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 12, line 36, after “Mayor,” to insert “the elected council of”.
I will withdraw the amendment and I reserve the right to reintroduce it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
(Interruptions).
Ciúnas, a chairde. Could Senators please continue their conversations in the ante room?
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 12, after line 38, to insert the following:
“(3) In conducting a review under this section, the Minister shall examine the manner in which the powers afforded to the elected council intersect with those of the Mayor and shall look to ways in which the powers of the elected council, including powers in terms of revenue-raising measures, could be increased.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9
Amendments Nos. 8 to 13, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 13, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following:
“(b) Furthermore, the Mayor shall not engage in any other type of paid employment during their term of office.”.
I gather that I will need to speak to amendment No. 8, and I think the Acting Chair mentioned that amendment No. 11 is also included, is that right?
It is amendments Nos. 8 to 13, inclusive.
I thank the Acting Chair. The Minister of State is welcome back.
With regard to amendment No. 8, if we want this position to be a truly transforming one for local democracy, the position of mayor must be the sole focus of anyone 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 value. If it is to have value, it must be the single focus of any elected mayor, and removing the opportunity for other trade and occupation opportunities will ensure the integrity of the position is maintained. That is my point on that one.
I also want to speak to amendment No. 11, as it falls within this grouping. This is quite a detailed amendment, and I want to read it into the record because it is probably the amendment I feel most passionate about. It states the following should be inserted under section 10: “The Mayor shall have, as a function, an ambassadorial role in the promotion and delivery of a living wage in businesses contained within the administrative area covered by Limerick City and County Council.” On that, I know the Minister of State knows that the introduction of a living wage is a commitment in his own programme for Government. It is something that I and my party are committed to delivering. It would be a wage that allows a person to live with dignity. Allowing the mayor a promotional and ambassadorial role in the delivery of a living wage would allow for this ideal to be highlighted to a larger number of people. This is the first in a number of enhancements that we want to give to the position of mayor.
The second states: "The mayoral role shall have promotional and delivery responsibilities in the advertising and promotion of Limerick as a national and international tourist destination." If we deliver a truly democratic mayor with real powers, the person holding this position will have a level of influence and clout that other elected members, TDs, councillors and Senators do not. The power and prestige of the position makes it extremely suitable for the elected mayor to champion the delivery of tourists in great numbers to Limerick. I would have thought that would be something that would really be very much in tune with the Minister of State's thinking. He will join with me in always trying to promote Limerick as a great place to visit and stay in. It makes perfect sense that the mayor should have a particular role in that regard, so why not legislate for it right now? Why wait for a review in three years for something that we all agree should be a central part of the role as mayor?
The next part of the amendment states, "The Mayoral role shall have responsibility for the organising and sharing of the Joint Policing Committee." While this may remove a power from local councillors, it is thought that the chairperson of Limerick city and county joint policing committee, JPC, is a power that should rest with the mayor of the entire Limerick city and county area. I do not need to say to the Minister of State that while we live in a wonderful city, there are pockets where there are significant issues that need the attention of the Garda. Whether we like it or not, the mayor is going to have a role in this area. Why not give him or her this particular power in respect of the JPC?
The amendment next states, "The Mayor shall have executive powers in the realm of waste management." As a trade unionist, this is something very close to my heart. My union and others have campaigned for this for years. I live in the small village of Castleconnell, a place the Minister of State knows well. We currently have four different truck companies driving around collecting rubbish each week. How that ever aligns with good environmental practice is beyond me. There are real concerns regarding the terms and conditions of some of the workers in some of companies as well. This amendment seeks to give the mayor responsibility for waste management, with the specific intention of increasing efficiency in how waste is collected and managed.
The CCPC report of 2018, which was commissioned by the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, suggested that the current structure is not in the interests of consumers or the environment. In many areas of the city and county, there are multiple companies servicing streets, sometimes with two or three different lorries on the same street in one day. It is not efficient and this is an opportunity to give a mayor a tangible success in their first term that is in the interests of the people of Limerick. The Minister of State must acknowledge that the current system is entirely unsatisfactory. Wherever he lives must be the same as where I live. It makes no sense to have four different sets of trucks coming through one street alone each week.
The amendment further states, "The mayor shall have executive powers for public realm improvements, including disused and unused public spaces." It is crucial for the success of the democratically elected mayoral project that the elected mayor has sufficient powers to ensure that the concern that the position may be a ceremonial, ribbon-cutting one is nullified. Another public representative in the Dáil referred to it as stuffed duck on a mantelpiece. I would not use those words, but the concern we have is apparent. If it is purely or largely ceremonial then the expectations of the citizens of Limerick will be disappointed. They want to see this person be able to impact in a democratic and meaningful way. These are really good simple practical suggestions.
One area of significant power is that of decision-making on the use of idle public space. I urge the Minister of State to be more ambitious and consider this amendment seriously.
The next part of the amendment states:
The Mayor shall have oversight with regard 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.
This would really put meat on the bone in terms of mayoral powers. Regeneration in Limerick has been a mixed bag. I hope the Minister of State will agree with that. In some ways, it has failed and, in others, it has been crucial to enhancing areas that were most impacted by the violent feuds of the mid-2000s. There have been successes and there have been failures across all three pillars of the regeneration project but it is fair to say that the areas are better for the involvement of the regeneration agencies. Regeneration is not just about bricks and mortar; it is about social inclusion and community participation.
It is crucial that any future regeneration funding and schemes are directed to the areas that most need them. Giving control of this roll-out to a Limerick-based and democratically elected mayor will enhance the probability that these resources are delivered to those areas.
Amendment No. 11 also states: "The Mayoral role shall, subject to section 213 of the Act of 2000, incorporate executive functions from the chief executive in the realm of land acquisition, with all purchases being subject to the ratification by Limerick City and County Council." It is important the position of mayor is not a ribbon-cutting, ceremonial role. It is over 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 to no power.
Providing the mayor with the power to acquire land will go some way towards addressing the absence of real power in the initiated Bill. To give a practical example, the people of Limerick would expect the mayor to have an impact on an issue like housing. The Minister of State has not catered for that in the Bill. It is not there.
I hope the Minister of State will take the general point I make. We expected more from this Bill, particularly as it is five years since the people of Limerick voted. It is not there at the minute. These are sensible and reasonable additions to mayoral powers. The people of Limerick would want these powers to be enacted. This Bill would be a huge disappointment. I mean this respectfully. I know Fine Gael is traditionally a conservative party. That is fair enough; that is its perspective on life. However, being overly conservative with this Bill is to the detriment of the people and communities of Limerick. Give the mayor the democratic powers he or she deserves to make an impact in the first term so we can point to this initiative as a success. As the Minister of State pointed out, there are areas across the water where mayoral powers and the role of democratically elected mayors are being withdrawn. We do not want to go down that road. The best way to ensure success is to give sufficient power to this new democratically elected office. It is in the Minister of State's hands. As someone from Limerick, I appeal to the Minister of State to look again, consider these amendments and work with us if he has concerns about the content. Let us do more. If not today, then at least on Report Stage, I ask the Minister of State to work with us.
On Senator Gavan's amendment No. 11, these are reasonable and appropriate powers ensuring it is not just a place to visit but a place where people can live and work for a wage that allows them to live. There are a few areas where I will have complementary amendments. The public realm is a key aspect of what people expect from a mayor. I have certain amendments in relation to the functions which seek to ensure that public space is part of what the mayor delivers.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 seek to address a wide, principled issue, which is that we do not want this to fail or to be seen as another disappointment or false start for local democracy. At a time when there is disaffection with democracy in many parts of Europe, we want to engage people with the subsidiarity principle of meaningful decisions as close as possible to them and we want people to have accountability and a say in those decisions. In the massive curtailment of the powers of the mayor proposed in this Bill as it is set out, unfortunately, it is a massive curtailment of the voice of the people of Limerick. It is not simply an individual curtailed by the lack of ambition in the mayoral powers, but all the people of Limerick when they go out to vote because they like the ideas, vision or proposals mayoral candidates put forward. They come up against the obstacle that, even though they made that decision and voted because they liked that vision, huge areas are off limits and still outside their democratic reach.
That is a signal that it sends. It is a signal that has been very poorly sent through the excessive centralising of powers towards chief executives and away from elected council members, as I discussed earlier, which is a real, significant problem identified at European level in terms of Ireland's local democracy. I worry that we are making the same mistake again.
We have a seven or eight-page Schedule to this Bill listing all the areas in which powers we might expect the mayor to have will, in fact, be vested with the director general, the former chief executive. It is too long. I am going to have a long set of amendments later where I specifically identify some areas in respect of which it is very problematic that they be given to a director general who is, at the end of the day, an unelected official, and not to an elected and accountable person such as a mayor. In many of these, it is not just sections, it is the whole Act. Waste management was identified by Senator Gavan as an area in which there is lively and vibrant debate around re-municipalisation and different approaches. It has huge implications in terms of the circular economy. It has significant environmental implications. Many municipalities have actually decided to move back towards re-municipalisation or at least towards greater regulation at local level. That, by the way, is what has led to the end of illegal dumping, when you actually have proper public services being delivered in terms of waste. This is an issue, we know is current, I have heard raised by many people here in the Chamber. However, right now, the whole Waste Management Act sits with the director general, with the chief executive, and it is explicitly taken away from the powers of a mayor even though it may be part of what people care about in Limerick, and a factor in who and what they vote for. It is just one example. As I said, it is one line among eight pages of areas that are powers still given to the director general and not to the mayor.
While I am going to come to many of the individual examples later, amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are trying to deal with the general problem. Areas listed in the Schedule include planning, housing, animal welfare and national monuments. Surely the mayor may have something to contribute in respect of national monuments that are within Limerick, and there are indeed many significant monuments and heritage sites. Also included are historic and archaeological heritage and waste management. All of these are areas that people might reasonably expect to see, and internationally they are the kinds of areas in which we see mayors having opinions, mayors taking action. These are areas that are excluded currently. If we want mayors who have the ability to enact meaningful change and to meaningfully reflect the will, ideas, democratic desires of the people of Limerick, then we cannot continue to have so much power sitting with an unelected chief executive or director general.
I have later amendments around specific areas but amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are about the general principle. We need a way whereby items that are currently in this eight-page Schedule can be moved off it. There needs to be at least some mechanism. This to me smacks of an excess of conservatism and caution at the moment. It seems like literally almost any act that you could find, that might have any power, that might effect anything, got stuck in the Schedule. It is going to become an obstacle to the effective working of the office of mayor. As I stated earlier, I think that is going to become evident a lot earlier than two or three years' time. We are going to come up against the reality of areas that are clearly relevant being out of reach of action by the mayor.
My amendments Nos. 9 and 10 would introduce a power whereby the functions conferred on the director general in the Schedule could be removed from the Schedule and conferred on the mayor by resolution of the elected council. I am not saying all functions should be given to the mayor but that there should be a mechanism whereby functions can be moved to the mayor and by which the elected council – the other part of the diverse democratic expression of wishes and views of the people of Limerick – can remove a power from the Schedule to transfer it from the director general back to the mayor. That is a very reasonable measure. It is a safety net. I am not simply saying all the functions should be given to the mayor but that there should be a mechanism whereby relevant powers can be transferred to the appropriate person, namely the mayor.
Amendment No. 9 simply states functions could be conferred by a resolution of the elected council. I have tried to set a higher bar in amendment No. 10 because there is, perhaps, a fear regarding how the powers might be used. I have set the bar of a two-thirds majority. Essentially, this requirement would mean one would need not only the support of whatever party may happen to have a majority in the council but also the cross-party support of the many and diverse members, elected by different people across Limerick for different reasons, for the idea that, at a given time, a particular power should sit with the mayor rather than the director general. That is a very reasonable proposal. The two-thirds majority entails a higher bar. I urge the Minister of State to accept the amendment because there is currently no mechanism for getting anything off the Schedule. If a mayor wishes to do something relevant concerning, say, archaeological heritage, such as a discovery near St. John's Castle, he or she will not have the power to act on it. However, if the Minister of State accepts my amendment, sections of the archaeology and history legislation could be opened up for mayoral action with the agreement of a majority of councillors. This is a really reasonable proposal and provides quite a good safety net. It would save us from having to accept the long set of amendments we will get to in which I try to individually remove provisions from the Schedule-----
The Minister of State could save time.
He could save a lot of time. It would save us from having to produce primary legislation simply to remove something that should not have been put in a Schedule in the first place.
I shall now speak very briefly about amendments Nos. 12 and 13, which I believe are in the same grouping. Amendment No. 12 relates to an issue flagged during pre-legislative scrutiny by the Library and Research Service, namely that the existing executive functions are not listed anywhere. There is a very general provision in the Local Government Act 2001 to the effect that any function of a local authority not designated as a reserved function is deemed to be an executive function. The amendment would require the mayor and elected members of the council to be given a list of the executive functions, or the exact powers of the director general, formerly the chief executive. That would allow for the clear, smooth and effective operation of the mayoralty. We would know the powers that exist, where the decision-making powers lie and the powers not clearly enumerated in this regard. This would avoid ambiguity. In every county council, clarity on the exact powers of the chief executive is needed.
Amendment No. 13 seeks to insert a new subsection (2) that would require the Minister, before making a determination on the funding required for the mayor of Limerick in performing his or her functions, to "consult with the Mayor and the elected members of Limerick City and County Council".
There is another fundamental problem in ensuring that the mayor has actual powers to engage in funding and appropriate resources. This came up earlier. It is that question of ensuring that the resources are there to adequately and meaningfully deliver. We may fail in this, the resources may not be there, the powers may be blocked, and people may go out to vote for a directly elected mayor and then be disillusioned two or three years later because they have found that the mayor was in a symbolic role. People are not looking for and do not need more symbolism; they want a say. If the mayor does not reflect or act on the vision the mayor had put forward, or is not able to act because he or she does not have the resources or powers, it is not simply the mayor who will be disappointed; the public in Limerick will be disappointed, the electorate will be disappointed, and there will be a negative impact on democracy in that sense. I hope the Minister of State might consider that as regards ensuring that the proper resources are there.
I propose to address amendments Nos. 8 to 13, inclusive, as they have been grouped together for discussion.
Amendment No. 8, from Sinn Féin, to section 9 of the Bill proposes that the mayor shall not engage in any other form of paid employment during his or her term. I thank the Senators for highlighting this important point as the office of the mayor is a full-time role, with the successful candidate responsible for a wide range of functions across all aspects of local government in Limerick city and county. As discussed in the Dáil, the Bill is already very clear on the requirements for the mayor in fulfilling this demanding role. Subsection (5) of section 9 states that the mayor will serve on a full-time basis for his or her term of office, while subsection (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. In addition, the mayor will be subject to the ethics provisions in the Local Government Act and the codes of conduct for the local government service. With this in mind, I remain of the view that the Bill sets out appropriate parameters on this matter, and I do not propose to accept this amendment.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 from the Civil Engagement Group relate to functions of the mayor and responsibilities specified for the director general set out in Part 2 of Schedule 1, proposing that the functions specified may be conferred on the mayor by a resolution of the elected council. I commend the Senators on their conscientious approach to the mayoral functions. It is important, however, to acknowledge the robust structure of the Bill, which provides that when the mayor takes up office, he or she will be responsible for many of the executive functions of Limerick City and County Council. Certain specific executive functions will, however, remain the responsibility of the director general. These were outlined in the context of the plebiscite on which the people voted. That was specifically given to the people, furthermore identified in the report of the implementation advisory group and given further effect in the general scheme.
The responsibilities that remain with the director general - they were put to the people - 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, as it is important to give certainty to the existing staff in the council as well. Also remaining are the Accounting Officer role, like a director general of a Department; holding polls and managing elections; operating key schemes and service level agreements such as, for example, HAP shared services and compliance, enforcement and taking legal proceedings arising from these functions. In general, statutory functions which confer a benefit on an individual are to remain with the director general, while responsibility at a strategic and policy level will rests with the mayor.
Senator Gavan spoke about the mayor and housing. The mayor might have a strategic role in terms of housing policy. That comes through from the development plan. The mayor will now bring that to the chamber, rather than the current CEO. That is hugely significant. It is important that the mayor deals with those strategic decisions which, in respect of policy, undermine the operational aspects of the council. That cannot be overlooked. It is hugely important. This is reflected in Part 2 of Schedule 1, as the provisions of the Acts and regulations set out there fall within the parameters of these functions. As an ex officio member of the council, the mayor, along with other elected members, may hold the director general accountable for the performance of these specified functions. As the functions specified in Part 2 of Schedule 1 are confined to only those that fall under the refined scope set out in the policy approach I have outlined, I cannot accept this amendment.
Amendment No. 11 from Sinn Féin Senators puts forward a number of new functions of the mayor. These were also discussed in the Dáil and I will speak to each in turn.
The new subsection (6) of amendment No. 11 proposes that the mayor would have an ambassadorial role in the promotion and delivery of a living wage in business in Limerick. Commitments have already been made by the Government to advance to a national living wage by 2026 through incremental increases to the national minimum wage.
As the national minimum wage has a statutory basis and is the legal minimum wage that must be paid to employees, subject to limited exceptions, there should be no requirement for an ambassadorial role in its promotion and delivery. It is, therefore, not appropriate to include this provision in the Bill.
The new subsection (7) in amendment No. 11 proposes that the mayor would have a role in raising awareness and recognition of the Limerick region and its brand among domestic and international visitors. I appreciate the positive intent behind this amendment and the importance of ensuring Limerick is recognised for its unique spirit and charm. The increased focus on the county’s many attractions in recent times has enabled Limerick to take its rightful position on the national and international stage as a tourist destination. However, I accept that to take advantage of Limerick’s full potential, further work could be done, and the mayor will-----
On a point of order, and I mean this respectfully, the Minister of State is speaking so fast that I cannot understand what he is saying. I know he wants to get the Bill through, but I ask him to speak at a pace that we can understand. I want to listen and respond.
This important role is reflected in section 32, which provides for the mayor to establish a Limerick mayoral advisory and implementation committee. One of the functions of the committee, which is to be chaired by the mayor, will be, "to promote, foster and support economic, touristic, social and cultural activities in Limerick, in particular the rural areas thereof". I specifically came up with that wording. When I was doing the legislation as it was originally structured, there was a separate definition in the context of rural and urban areas. As Senators Gavan and Maria Byrne will be aware, in the context of Limerick and the amalgamation there, it is important that we are as one. If the mayor wishes to set up separate committees, he or she may by all means do so, but this point is very important in the context of the two amalgamated councils - one significantly rural and the other urban. I am going outside what I said but I was specific in that wording in order that it would encompass all aspects. I very much appreciate the intention of the Senator's amendment but cannot accept it on the basis that it is already dealt with in the Bill. It is a matter of which I was very conscious but I have expanded on from where I was coming in this regard. It is important that we work as one on this issue.
The new subsection (8) in the amendment proposes that the mayor would have responsibility for organising and chairing the JPC. Senators may be aware that the Policing, Security and Community Safety Act 2024, brought forward by the Minister for Justice, was recently passed by the Houses of the Oireachtas and has just been signed into law by the President. Under its provisions, JPCs are to be stood down later this year and replaced by local community safety partnerships, LCSPs. The amendment relating to the mayor being chair of the joint policing committee, therefore, no longer has a context for discussion and cannot be accepted. I note the import, however.
The appointment of chairs to the LCSPs is a matter which may be subject to regulation by the Minister for Justice. Although I am on record as being in favour of a role for the mayor in the new local community safety partnerships, the Minister has outlined in the Houses that the role of chair will be an open position. I am on record, however, as stating that I would like the mayor to be chair of the new LCSP. Obviously, that is a decision for the Minister. I have discussed the matter with her. It is separate legislation. The role of chair will not specifically go to local authority members but there is nothing to stop them from being chair if they wish to put themselves forward for the selection process for the role. It is similar to the local community development committees. In that context, there is nothing to preclude an elected mayor from seeking the position. I would like to do more. I am working on that but it is outside the scope of this legislation. I am in discussions with the Minister for Justice on the matter.
I note that in the recent Seanad debate on the Policing, Security and Community Safety Act, the Minister for Justice introduced an amendment under section 114 relating to the election of the chair, which provides that regulations made under subsection (1) "shall not, insofar as they make provision for the election of a chairperson and vice-chairperson of a safety partnership, make provision that precludes the election of members of local authorities as such a chairperson or vice-chairperson". The amendment was agreed to and is included in the Act. I am on record with regard to this matter. We are working on this but it will come through regulation from the Minister. That whole area of the appointment of a chair may be subject to regulation by the Minister.
The new subsection (9) in amendment No. 11 proposes that the mayor shall have executive powers with regard to waste management.
As set out in the general scheme of the Bill, all executive functions provided for under the Waste Management Act 1996, and all executive functions relating to waste and waste management arising from EU legislation, are responsibilities to remain with the DG. This has been reflected in Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Bill, which contains provision from legislation that deals with the operation of waste management to be retained by the DG. Therefore, I cannot accept this amendment.
Waste management plans have been adopted on a regional basis to include the entire country. In 2021 it was agreed that the regions would together prepare one national waste management plan for a circular economy. This plan will be made in the coming months. This successful collaboration has allowed Ireland to continue to satisfy the binding requirements set out in Article 28 of the waste framework directive regarding the production of waste management plans.
New subsection (10) proposes that the mayor shall have executive responsibility for public realm improvements, including vacant or disused public spaces. The purpose and effect of this amendment is not clear in terms of whether it is proposing a role for the mayor in the advancing of public realm improvements or in the consenting processes. In this regard I would note a number of general points.
The Planning Act does not specify development types under the label of "public realm improvement", although it does set out that all local authority works are exempt from planning permission. It should be noted, however, that certain development types, the thresholds for which are relatively low, require the local authority's own development process under section 179 of the Planning Act and this is a reserved function of the elected members. As this Bill does not create new functions relating to development consent nor does it remove reserved functions from the elected members, I cannot accept this amendment.
New subsection (11) proposes that the mayor shall have oversight with regard 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. I agree the mayor will have an important role in the oversight and development of regeneration generally in Limerick. That has been reflected in this Bill. As noted, section 32 sets out the mayor will establish a Limerick mayoral advisory and implementation committee. A core function of this committee, chaired by the mayor, will be the co-ordination in Limerick of measures giving effect to Government policy concerning the regeneration of towns.
Further to this, section 33 provides for the mayor to chair the Limerick Project Ireland 2040 delivery board, which will focus on the implementation of the national planning framework and the national development plan in the Limerick region. One of the main functions of the delivery board will include engaging and collaborating with bodies involved in “the arrangement, co-ordination and provision of social and economic regeneration measures including the development and improvement of land and infrastructure”. Again, I provided for it in the Bill. The mayor will play a key role in these areas. Again, while I accept the spirit of the Senator's amendment, I cannot accept it on the basis that it has already been incorporated into the Bill.
On a more general note, regeneration projects do not have a separate statutory basis. In Limerick, the Limerick regeneration framework implementation plan is the programme of works setting out the shared vision for stronger communities within regeneration areas. The local strategic advisory and monitoring group oversees the implementation of the plan. This advisory group includes representatives from community, and other bodies and is chaired by the chief executive, which will be a role for the mayor going forward. A mayor will chair the advisory group.
New subsection (12) proposes that the mayor would have a role in land acquisition, under section 213 of the Planning Act, subject to the ratification of purchases by Limerick City and County Council. The provisions of the Bill aim to allow for the mayor to have a role in relation to the acquisition for the performance of the functions of the local authority. However, a resolution of elected members is not required under section 213 of the Planning Act as it is an executive function. As stated above, the Bill does not remove, alter or create new functions. Therefore, this amendment cannot be accepted.
Amendment No. 12, meanwhile, would require the director general to submit a list of executive functions to the mayor and elected members. That comes from the Civil Engagement Group.
I acknowledge the intentions of the Senators in terms of ensuring clarity for the new mayor in his or her role. The scale of the task proposed is something that I have come to have a very good working knowledge of. The vast bulk of the work that my officials and I have carried out on the Bill since publication has been on identifying functions of local authorities from across the entirety of the Statute Book. This is a completely new departure so it is a new measure. Truthfully, this has been an enormous task. It has involved reviewing legislation as far back as the Poor Relief Act of 1838, and has involved interaction with every Department of Government as well as many of our agencies. Many of these functions are set out in Part 2 of Schedule 1 as functions that will rest with the director general. I think we are all struck by the scale and diversity of those local government functions.
As Members will be aware, functions at a strategic and policy level are to vest in the mayor.
While these typically account for only a few sections of an Act, they are the key overarching functions without which the more numerous operational functions could not be given effect. Therefore, in the allocation of functions between the mayor and the director general, quantity is not the only metric.
Given all this, to provide in statute that the director general must prepare and submit a list of executive functions previously held by the chief executive is a significant and onerous task. However, I do have an alternative proposal for how this could be accomplished, at least in part, on an administrative basis. The Local Government Management Agency has published a catalogue of over 1,000 services that are provided by local authorities. In addition, my officials have prepared an explanatory table of all the functions from the enactments listed in Schedule 1. There is no difficulty in making these two pieces of work available to the mayor and the elected council. The combination of these would go a long way to achieving the intent of this amendment.
In time, I would like to see something similar to the Local Government Management Agency catalogue of services being produced for statutory functions. I believe that the background work on this Bill would provide a very useful starting point for such a project and my Department would be happy to share the work it has done.
I will conclude by noting that the main role of the director general will be to support the mayor in the effective administration and day-to-day running of the local authority. In the performance of those functions, they will be accountable to the mayor and this information will be available to the mayor.
Elected members may also request this information by virtue of section 149 of the Local Government Act of 2001. This provides that a chief executive shall, when requested by the elected council, report on actions taken or planned in the exercise of their executive functions.
While it is not possible to accept this amendment, I thank members for the opportunity to set out my thoughts on how its aims may be achieved.
Amendment 13 proposes that in advancing moneys to the mayor the Minister for Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery, and Reform would consult with the mayor and elected members. The provision of funding for the mayor will be agreed by the Minister and the Minister for Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery, and Reform as part of annual budgetary negotiations and through the normal Estimates process.
The Government is committed to ensuring that the local government sector remains vibrant and sustainable and is well equipped and properly resourced to deliver the key functions within its remit.
The funding system for local authorities is a complex one, as authorities derive their income from a variety of sources including commercial rates, charges for goods and services, local property tax as well as funding from Departments and other bodies.
I understand that the amendment from Senator Higgins and the Civil Engagement Group may wish to align some of the budget processes. However, the mayor’s budget relates to their mayoral programme, developed by them from the manifesto they put before the people of Limerick. It is something that the successful candidate will have put to the people about how they will spend the specific allocation and is part of their mandate. Consequently, I do not wish to complicate the process by introducing further levels of consultation. For this reason I cannot accept this amendment. I will put this in context. The annual budget from the council continues. It is brought by the mayor or DG but it continues to be a reserve function of the elected members. The mayor is getting an annual allocation of an extra €8 million or so into Limerick for their mayoral programme which they will have put by way of a manifesto to the people of Limerick when they put themselves forward in June. I would also mention that the Limerick mayoral consultative forum. The mayor will bring their programme to the elected council, the members. It is something for which they have a democratic mandate. It is important that they retain control over that process. They bring the programme to the chamber for consultation but the chamber cannot veto their mayoral programme. It is something different but it is something that the mayor will have put to the people. I return to the fundamental principle that it is based on a democratic process and what the people will have voted on to elect them to the mayoral office. However, in the practical world of politics, I would expect any mayor to get the support of the chamber to secure proper validity for their programme. If you look at Bristol and Liverpool, these are issues that did arise at the time.
I would also mention that the Limerick mayoral and government consultative forum provides a mechanism for engagement between the mayor, the Minister and other Ministers, including the Minister for Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery, and Reform, on an ongoing basis.
I thank the Minister of State. Before I go to Senator Gavan, I welcome to the Gallery the students and teachers from Glenstal Abbey in Limerick. It seems that Limerick is taking over the Chamber today. We are currently discussing a Bill to deliver a directly elected mayor for Limerick. They are very welcome as guests of Deputy Leddin.
I think we are almost out of time but I will say, and I mean this respectfully, I am so disappointed. The interpretation of the plebiscite the Minister of State has included in this Bill is so conservative. If we were to ask the people of Limerick if they would like their mayor to tackle the issue of waste management, they would tell us that of course they would. The idea that it would instead lie with the director general, an unelected position, rather than with the democratically elected mayor, is not acceptable.
The whole issue of public realm improvements is similar. Surely to God that is what a Limerick mayor should be there to tackle. The fundamental point I must make to the Minister of State is that this was an opportunity to enhance democratic accountability and powers at local level in our city of Limerick and he has consistently missed that opportunity. All of the reasonable points that have been made today about how we might enhance those powers have been rejected by the Minister of State. My colleague, Deputy Quinlivan, made the point in the Dáil that the Minister of State did not reach out to meet us halfway on any of these points. The real pity is that Limerick city and county will be all the poorer for that. This is happening under the Minister of State's watch and it is very much a missed opportunity.
All of us here are public representatives for Limerick. I believe that many of the points that have been raised in the amendments are included in the Bill. We can beg to differ but that is what I believe. Consequently, I cannot accept these amendments. I believe many of the matters have already been covered in the Bill.
Is Senator Gavan moving his amendments?
Not just yet. What time are we due to conclude the debate?
We are due to conclude at 3.21 p.m.
That is good because I have an extra five minutes. I wish to make a point in all seriousness about the inclusion of these amendments. I acknowledge the fact that the Minister of State has answered on the policing issue by saying the community safety partnership has not yet been set up and has expressed the wish that the mayor will be chair. That is now on the record of the House, which I welcome.
Let us consider the issue of Limerick regeneration, which the Minister of State says is already accounted for. If it is accounted for, why not accept this amendment? It states: "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." There is nothing outlandish in that amendment. If what the Minister of State is saying is correct and this has already been catered for, there should be no problem with accepting the amendment. The very fact that he will not accept these amendments tells me he is not willing to give the new mayor the required powers.
The Minister of State keeps talking about respecting the reserve powers of the councillors, and I get that, but he is again missing the overarching point that those powers have been diminished in recent years. We should be looking at this as an opportunity to enhance the powers of our local councillors who we all agree do such tremendous hard work. The Minister of State has again missed an opportunity. He seems to be stuck in a straitjacket that means we can only go so far and no further. Why should we leave waste management with the director general? We do not get to elect the director general. We will, in June, have the opportunity to elect the mayor and he or she should have the powers to deal with waste management because as I am sure the Minister of State will acknowledge, and as everyone across Limerick will acknowledge, it is a major issue. We have major dumping issues across Limerick because the current system is not fit for purpose. There are four private companies competing with each other and they are trailing their way through villages and towns across Limerick city and county. Action is needed to deal with the issue but the Minister of State is insisting that the mayor should not have the powers to deal with it.
What is being insisted upon is that the mayor should not have the power to deal with that situation. I do not think the people of Limerick will be impressed with that position. We are giving the Government the opportunity today to enhance the powers of the mayor and to give the office the power to deal with the crucial issue of waste management. For the life of me, I cannot see why the Minister of State will not agree to this power being granted.
He already had an opportunity to do this in the Dáil, but he rejected it. I am making the case again here because I truly believe we can do better in this regard. I truly believe we can do so. The point the Minister of State has made, I think about half a dozen times now, is that he cannot do any more because this is how the people voted. That is a particularly conservative interpretation of how the people voted. I do not think that anything in the way the people voted would proscribe the mayor from having powers over waste management. If the Minister of State and I can agree that the current situation is not acceptable, and I think we do, then why not give the democratically-elected mayor of Limerick city the power to tackle the issue? This is what we need to do, and this is the last opportunity to do so. I again appeal to the Minister of State to listen to us and to work with us. We have today and we have Report Stage. I ask the Minister to work with us and to listen to what the people of Limerick actually want.
As the time allocated for the debate has elapsed, we must now adjourn in accordance with the order of the Seanad today. I ask Senator Gavan to report progress.
I report progress.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.