We are resuming on Committee Stage of the Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill 2023 to adjourn at 8.30 p.m., if not previously concluded. We are resuming on amendment No. 8 and when we adjourned the last day Senator Gavan was in position but he is not here today. Senator Warfield is his party colleague. Does he want to say something at this point?
Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill 2023: Committee Stage (Resumed)
SECTION 9
Debate resumed on 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.”.
- (Senator Paul Gavan)
I support this amendment around various things the mayor should be doing, such as chairing the joint policing committee, and having powers in terms of waste management, regeneration and the public realm and, importantly, the introduction of a living wage, and promoting that initiative. The mayor having an ambassadorial role in the delivery of a living wage, which by the way is a programme for Government commitment, is something Sinn Féin and I are committed to delivering. That is amendment No. 11 in a nutshell.
I remind all Senators we are speaking to the grouping of amendments Nos. 8 to 13, inclusive. Does Senator Higgins want to come in?
I thank the Minister of State for some of his responses. On amendment No. 12, it was useful to hear that there may be some form of a get-around in terms of clarity around the executive functions previously held by the chief executive.
I am still really concerned with regard to amendments Nos. 9 and 10. What I want is an absolutely clear response in terms of what the mechanism will be to remove items from the Schedule. At the moment, we have a seven or eight-page Schedule. Each line on those seven or eight pages lists another area of local government activity, which will not be available to the mayor. It is being specifically designated that the director general, the former chief executive, will be responsible for them. With respect, the Minister of State talked about what people voted on. I do not think this eight-page Schedule was attached at the time.
No, it was not.
I do not think people were expecting that so much would be out of reach of the person they elect. Disempowering the mayor in this way is disempowering the people of Limerick. When they vote, they will be directly voting for a mayor and that mayor will have his or her hands tied by this Schedule. In a whole raft of areas, they will not be able to take action. We will be saying, "Sorry, that is none of your business."
I spoke previously about some of the areas, which are hotly debated. People will make decisions on who they vote for based on these kinds of areas, and Senator Gavan spoke very eloquently on the issue of waste management and waste municipalisation, potentially. They also include things like archaeological heritage and monuments within the city of Limerick.
It is important to draw attention to the fact there is an eight-page list of things that are excluded from the reach of the mayor but later in this debate, the Government will add a pile of other things. We may get to nine or ten pages because even more things are being put in the Schedule. There is obviously a huge fear centrally that there might be a mayor who would actually do something. The whole Derelict Sites Act will be moot. There could be a mayor who wanted to tackle dereliction. All of the regeneration legislation will go to the chief executive, in case there is a mayor who may want to tackle regeneration as part of his or her agenda.
I spoke about the animal welfare legislation. Let us be clear that the wildlife and the habitats legislation will also be out of reach. If we have a mayor with a vision and who goes to the public with a vision, which gets people in Limerick excited that they will be able to do something and not just be a figurehead cutting ribbons on whatever might be a Government policy already or whatever might happen to be in the 2040 plan already and that they will perhaps bring forward a new idea or look to a new way of delivering legislation - some of the legislation has not been very well-delivered by chief executives in the past - then we will disappoint people.
I just hate disappointing people on democracy. We need people to find democracy to be a satisfying, meaningful and substantial use of their time and energy. In that regard, the Schedule is a big elephant in the room and it is getting bigger as the Minister of State adds these other amendments. What is the process whereby if this Schedule turns out to be a problem, an item can be removed from it? My amendments propose that either by a plain majority or a two thirds majority, the council members should be able to take an item off that Schedule. If the Minister of State has another mechanism, I am very open to it but we need to have a mechanism that deals with this issue of the overreach on the Schedule.
We debated this at great length last week and it was a very informative debate.
My position remains unchanged. I remind the House that the Schedule covers various Acts that have come in over many years. One does not expect a Minister to effectively implement all the provisions of a Bill; that is the work of the staff in the Department. It is the same position here. The mayor will drive policy. I do not want the mayor getting bogged down in detail. The role of the mayor involves driving policy and development plans and bringing the budget forward. All those things are currently brought forward by the CEO, so it is a major transfer of power. I am absolutely true.
Under the various headings that were put to the people by plebiscite, various aspects of legislation apply - various grant schemes, permits, licenses, operating key schemes, service level agreements, compliance, planning and enforcement. The mayor should not have any role in planning. That is a role, like anything else, where people apply to the council itself.
I understand the thrust of the amendments. However, it is hugely important that the mayor has the ability to drive policy. That is what was put to the people. The application of that policy and the applications of the areas that remain the responsibility of the CEO come in under various Acts. It is important we list those Acts.
Regarding the process, I do not see the following happening because we have been very true to this. If situations arise where certain elements in the Schedule should instead be with the mayor, there is a review mechanism – a consultation forum – that will take place in that regard. Councillors retain exactly the powers they have. The mayor brings additionality and the mayor is getting a mandate from the people to implement their programme and policy.
On that basis, many areas of the amendments are already covered under the legislation. It may be a bit old fashioned but I always go back to the democratic wish of the people. I have stood before them enough times myself, as many other Members of the House have. Certainly, what is in the legislation is true to that. It is hugely important that the mayor brings additionality. There has to be a transfer of functions from the CEO to the mayor – not from the councillors to the mayor.
Furthermore, regarding reports that have come from Europe, they welcome the directly elected mayor legislation and want to see more of that. Ultimately, it is the democratic wish of the people.
With that, I am not minded to accept the amendments, but I accept the genuineness of them.
To be clear, nothing in these amendments will take any powers away from elected councillors. These amendments relate specifically to those powers that are given to the chief executive, now to be called the director general, and are reserved away from the mayor. I do not think the Minister's analogy works. We do not tend to pass legislation here that states "the Secretary General shall do this”, "the Secretary General shall do that" or “the Secretary General will decide how they feel about national monuments and be consulted”, for example. There are many policy and decision-making provisions within the Acts listed in this Schedule and they currently sit with the chief executive or the director general. In saying there is policy, of course the Minister does not hand-deliver each fine but in setting policy, it is the Minister who is mentioned in the legislation. It is the Minister who has the power and it is implemented by the secretariat. We do not give the secretariat the direct power whereas we have the exact opposite approach to local government and here, whereby the power is sitting with the secretariat, effectively. That is an issue. There is nothing about elected councillors here. This is specifically about which functions are being reserved for the director general, not the mayor. My amendment would explicitly allow for the transfer of functions not from councillors but the director general-chief executive to the mayor.
I regret that we cannot come to an agreement on this. I thank the Minister of State for his engagement, but my concerns remain. While the people voted for it, there certainly was not a ten-page Schedule with this level of exclusions attached on any ballot paper that people voted on.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 basically state that the councillors, by resolution, could remove items from Part 2 of Schedule 1. That is not what the people voted for. What is listed on Schedule 2 is probably large in number but it is only a reflection of legislation that has come in over various areas that remain with the DG and is what was put to the people. I accept the point but I must be true to what the people voted for. We can beg to differ on it. That is my final comment.
As somebody in Limerick, the Minister of State probably had a vote himself.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 6; Níl, 26.
Tá
- Boyhan, Victor.
- Higgins, Alice-Mary.
- Hoey, Annie.
- Keogan, Sharon.
- Wall, Mark.
- Warfield, Fintan.
Níl
- Ahearn, Garret.
- Blaney, Niall.
- Burke, Paddy.
- Byrne, Malcolm.
- Byrne, Maria.
- Carrigy, Micheál.
- Casey, Pat.
- Cassells, Shane.
- Clifford-Lee, Lorraine.
- Conway, Martin.
- Crowe, Ollie.
- Cummins, John.
- Daly, Paul.
- Davitt, Aidan.
- Dolan, Aisling.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Fitzpatrick, Mary.
- Gallagher, Robbie.
- Horkan, Gerry.
- Lombard, Tim.
- O'Loughlin, Fiona.
- O'Reilly, Joe.
- O'Sullivan, Ned.
- Seery Kearney, Mary.
- Ward, Barry.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Fintan Warfield and Alice-Mary Higgins; Níl, Senators Robbie Gallagher and Joe O'Reilly.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 14, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:
“(3) Functions conferred by or under any enactment specified in Part 2 of Schedule 1 may be removed from that Part and thus conferred on the Mayor by resolution of the elected council, with such a resolution requiring a simple majority.”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 7; Níl, 25.
Tá
- Boyhan, Victor.
- Higgins, Alice-Mary.
- Hoey, Annie.
- Keogan, Sharon.
- Ruane, Lynn.
- Wall, Mark.
- Warfield, Fintan.
Níl
- Ahearn, Garret.
- Blaney, Niall.
- Burke, Paddy.
- Byrne, Maria.
- Carrigy, Micheál.
- Casey, Pat.
- Cassells, Shane.
- Clifford-Lee, Lorraine.
- Conway, Martin.
- Crowe, Ollie.
- Cummins, John.
- Daly, Paul.
- Davitt, Aidan.
- Dolan, Aisling.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Fitzpatrick, Mary.
- Gallagher, Robbie.
- Horkan, Gerry.
- Lombard, Tim.
- O'Loughlin, Fiona.
- O'Reilly, Joe.
- O'Sullivan, Ned.
- Seery Kearney, Mary.
- Ward, Barry.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Alice-Mary Higgins and Lynn Ruane; Níl, Senators Robbie Gallagher and Joe O'Reilly.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 14, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:
“(3) Functions conferred by or under any enactment specified in Part 2 of Schedule 1 may be removed from that Part and thus conferred on the Mayor by resolution of the elected council, with such a resolution requiring a two-thirds majority.”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 14, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:
“(6) The Mayor shall have, as a function, an ambassadorial role in the promotion and delivery of a living wage in businesses contained within the administrative area covered by Limerick City and County Council.
(7) The Mayoral role shall have promotional and delivery responsibilities in the advertising and promotion of Limerick as a national and international tourist destination.
(8) The Mayoral role shall have responsibility for the organizing and chairing of the Joint Policing Committee.
(9) The Mayor shall have executive powers in the realm of waste management.
(10) The Mayor shall executive powers for public realm improvements including disused and unused public spaces.
(11) The Mayor shall have oversight with regards to the implementation of the Limerick Regeneration projects, and any subsequent regeneration programmes, and shall produce an annual report to be delivered to Councillors regarding the status of the regeneration programmes.
(12) The Mayoral role shall, subject to section 213 of the 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.”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 7; Níl, 25.
Tá
- Boyhan, Victor.
- Higgins, Alice-Mary.
- Hoey, Annie.
- Keogan, Sharon.
- Ruane, Lynn.
- Wall, Mark.
- Warfield, Fintan.
Níl
- Ahearn, Garret.
- Blaney, Niall.
- Burke, Paddy.
- Byrne, Maria.
- Carrigy, Micheál.
- Casey, Pat.
- Cassells, Shane.
- Clifford-Lee, Lorraine.
- Conway, Martin.
- Crowe, Ollie.
- Cummins, John.
- Daly, Paul.
- Davitt, Aidan.
- Dolan, Aisling.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Fitzpatrick, Mary.
- Gallagher, Robbie.
- Horkan, Gerry.
- Lombard, Tim.
- O'Loughlin, Fiona.
- O'Reilly, Joe.
- O'Sullivan, Ned.
- Seery Kearney, Mary.
- Ward, Barry.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Fintan Warfield and Alice-Mary Higgins; Níl, Senators Robbie Gallagher and Joe O'Reilly.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 14, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:
“(6) For the purposes of the operation of this Act, the director general shall prepare and submit to the Mayor and the elected members of Limerick City and County Council a list of executive functions previously held by the chief executive.”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 10 agreed to.
Sections 11 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 16
I move amendment No. 13:
.In page 16, after line 38, to insert the following:
“(2) Prior to making a determination under subsection (1), the Minister shall consult with the Mayor and the elected members of Limerick City and County Council.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 16 agreed to.
NEW SECTION
Amendments Nos. 14 to 16, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 17, to delete lines 1 to 25 and substitute the following:
“Attendance before council
17. (1) The Mayor shall be entitled and required to appear before Limerick City and County Council.
(2) The Mayor shall be entitled to speak and participate in discussions and move motions at meetings of Limerick City and County Council and he or she shall be required to make themselves available to attend such meetings on a regular basis.
(3) The Mayor may not exercise a vote at such meetings.
(4) The Mayor shall be accountable to the elected members of Limerick City and County Council in the performance of his or her functions, unless otherwise specified in this or another enactment.”.
This set of amendments relate to an issue I raised on Second Stage with the Minister of State and I am quite open to hearing his thoughts on it. This is trying to clarify the separation of powers between the mayor and the elected council and it is coming from the same issue the Minister of State has highlighted which is the importance of ensuring there is no diminution of councillors' powers. Indeed, in these amendments I am trying to highlight mechanisms whereby the councillors could have a strengthened role in holding the mayor to account.
These amendments, amendments Nos.14 to 16, inclusive, effectively, with a few different approaches, outline where the mayor may be attending, speaking or participating in meetings of the Limerick City and County Council. In the case of amendment No. 15, they may propose motions but they would not be voting. Amendment No. 16 specifically does not try to remove the power of voting but states that the mayor will be accountable. This is around trying to have a situation where we do not simply have a mayor who is another councillor, who may or may not turn up, who may put forward motions or who may vote. In fact, it is that we have an explicit requirement for the mayor to be accountable to the councillors.
It is the model used with the Mayor of London and the London Assembly whereby the mayor, even though he or she does not vote, is required to be accountable to the other elected members. I am trying to be consistent with that idea of subsidiarity where we ensure there is a specific additional power that councillors may hold. We are going to see quite a lot of consolidation of power in the hands of the mayor and director general and it is perhaps not as divided as I would like it to be, so I was trying to ensure there was some reserved additional power that would sit with councillors specifically and would allow them to hold the mayor to account. The Minister of State may not wish to accept amendments Nos. 14 or 15, which may or may not be the right approach, but may be seen as limiting the powers, whereas at least amendment No. 16 does not limit the powers of the mayor but would ensure there is a clear accountability structure and a requirement for accountability. I am interested in the Minister of State's take on any of those three amendments and how we generally address the issue of ensuring councillors are empowered to hold a mayor to account.
I will be brief. If I was just to listen to Senator Higgins I might agree with some of the points, but the amendments as listed do quite the opposite to what she stated. I have served on two occasions as mayor and it is not appropriate for the mayor to be bringing forward their own motions. The mayor's job, as head of the council, is to chair those meetings and to deal with the business of the meetings, which the councillors run. To be clear on amendment No. 16, the mayor will be accountable to the council. That is the way we have set up the legislation. I do not see the rationale for the amendments as set out.
I understand the broad thrust of these amendments to section 17 from the Civil Engagement Group is to ensure the mayor would not be a member of the council or have voting rights and also that the mayor is accountable to the council. I appreciate the Senator's rationale. However, it is at odds with the report of the independent advisory group chaired by Tim O'Connor, which the Government accepted and is implementing in this Bill.
I confirm the elected council will retain its primacy, if that is the concern, and that does not change with this Bill. That is something I have reiterated. The chamber and the members retain all their reserved powers. The mayor's powers are coming in the main from the devolution of powers from the CEO to the mayor. The council will have an important governance role over the performance of the mayor. The mayor is accountable to the elected council on their mayoral executive functions. There are formal structures to ensure this, including through the mayor’s report and mayor’s questions at plenary council meetings. In addition, the provisions of the Local Government Act in relation to the council’s oversight of the chief executive will apply in respect of the mayor, as set out in Schedule 3 of the Bill. I therefore confirm the legislation already makes the necessary provision for that accountability and oversight. On reserved functions, the Bill provides that the mayor will be an ex officio member with voting rights and in this way would act as part of the collective council and would not override it or supersede it. Importantly, the Bill provides that the mayor will not chair the council; rather that is the role of the príomh-chomhairleoir. That came out of the implementation group. It is the same model as in New York. Once again, the current chamber remains intact. The chamber becomes 40 plus one.
There also appears to be some conflict within some of the amendments proposed. Amendment No. 14 provides that the mayor would not be a member of the council, but would have the ability to move motions at meetings of the council. Amendment No. 15 provides that the mayor would not be a member of the council but would have voting rights. Both of these proposals would cause confusion and uncertainty in the role.
The deletion and replacement of the entire section as proposed also means that an important provision in section 17(6) is removed. That subsection provides that the removal of elected members under section 216 of the Local Government Act 2001 will not prevent the mayor from carrying out the executive functions.
On the basis of these considerations I unable to accept these amendments. The structure is very simple. The mayor is elected by the people and he or she becomes a member of the chamber as 40 plus one. There is the devolution of roles from the CEO to the mayor, so the mayor brings the budget and all the development plans. He or she is responsible to the members in the chamber like the CEO is at the moment. There are checks and balances everywhere. What we have is a very balanced approach and once again it is about ensuring the mayor brings added value and there is no confusion. On that basis, while I note the genuineness of the amendments I cannot accept them.
Just to clarify, on the mayor piece, I was referring to the existing mayor role. In the context of my comments the príomh-chomhairleoir is the position.
I am happy to leave amendments Nos. 14 and 15 aside for now because I hear what the Minister of State is saying about the reserved functions and ensuring the powers are there. Amendment No. 16 would just be adding that requirement for accountability; it does not change anything else. It does not limit the powers of the mayor in attending meetings, functioning as a normal councillor, putting forward motions, voting and so forth, but it puts in that requirement that they be accountable because at the moment we do not have a structure whereby councillors can say they require the mayor to come in, rather than the mayor choosing to come in or being there with the budget. It is a question of the councillors having a mechanism that allows them to require the mayor to attend. As was clarified there, the mayor is not necessarily going to be there in a chairing function because it is the príomh-chomhairleoir who will be doing that. It is effectively at the discretion of the mayor whether they choose to attend, at the moment. That is why amendment No. 16 is important and adds something a little different. I am going to withdraw amendments Nos. 14 and 15, but I might have to press amendment No. 16. It is an important issue and something that might matter to councillors down the line if we get a mayor who declines to make themselves accountable, which I hope does not prove to be the case.
I thank the Senator for deciding to leave aside amendments Nos. 14 and 15. On amendment No. 16, section 17(1) of the Bill states "The Mayor shall be, ex officio, a member of Limerick City and County Council". Section 17(4) states:
A member of the elected council attending a meeting of Limerick City and County Council may ask questions of the Mayor in relation to the performance by him or her of his or her functions and the Mayor shall answer such questions.
The mayor is therefore accountable to the chamber and there is no question about that. It automatically follows through in terms of the Local Government Act that the CEO is responsible to the chamber and likewise the mayor is responsible as well. It is covered in section 17(4), but the mayor retains the role of being accountable to the chamber under the Schedule as well, so we have provided for it belt and braces.
I am going to withdraw the amendment and reserve the right to bring it back on Report Stage. I will examine that.
That is fine. I thank the Senator.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 15 not moved.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 17, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
“(3) The Mayor shall be accountable to the elected members of Limerick City and County Council in the performance of his or her functions, unless otherwise specified in this or another enactment.”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 17 agreed to.
SECTION 18
Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 are related. Amendment No. 18 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 17. Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? It is.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 17, line 27, to delete “The director general, after consultation with the Mayor,” and substitute “The Mayor”.
A fundamental issue and concern with this legislation is that the mayor is not necessarily being given the powers or discretion to hire their own staff, which is something that could create an obstacle. I cannot imagine a situation where a Minister would have the majority of their special advisers hired by the Secretary General, but the director general or chief executive is going to be responsible for hiring and allocating staff for the mayor's office, effectively. We have a problem there and it is again part of that power imbalance. If people are employees within the council with a boss who is the director general they may be temporarily allocated to a mayor.
Really, however, the ultimate control over their career progression would sit with the director general and the chief executive. That is who it goes back to and that is who they are moving through.
There is the question of who people will ultimately answer to. A mayoral term is short. The mayor has to be effective and they will want to do a lot. We must give the mayor the discretion to hire their own staff, even if this is to be within the remit of the existing Public Appointments Service. They should have a key role in selecting who would work for them, which could be key to having a mayor who is actually effective. If, effectively, the person who already retains 90% of the powers, as we discussed earlier, also gets to pick which staff will work with the mayor, there may potentially be curtailments. The mayor should have the opportunity to select their own staff. That would be key to their efficiency and that is what these amendments are trying to do. There is a compromise, as I have said. I suggest that the mayor might "consult" the director general in doing this. I am not saying this has to be entirely independent.
Amendments No. 17 from the Civil Engagement Group and No. 18 from Sinn Féin and the Labour Party aim to change the manner in which the staff of the mayor are appointed. The appointment of staff to the office of the mayor was the subject of much debate in the Dáil, both on Committee Stage and Report Stage.
The Bill, as published, provides that the director general would appoint the office staff, in line with their responsibility for staffing matters. I believe it is critically important to have a well-functioning mayoral office from the outset. I amended the Bill on Report Stage in the Dáil. It did say that the director general "shall assign". I changed that to say that they "shall assign after consultation with the mayor". It now provides that the Mayor will be consulted. I am satisfied that this will enhance the support structure that I wish to place around the office of mayor and that it will not unduly impinge upon the director general’s function for staffing matters, which is set out in the implementation advisory group report and the general scheme.
This amendment places a consultation process, which was likely to take place anyway, on a statutory footing. I would also like to make the point that the mayor appoints their own special adviser. I would like to put this into context. This is a very similar role to the role of a Minister of State. Ministers of State have special advisers and they are appointed independently. Similarly, the mayor would be able to appoint a special adviser of their own choosing outside or inside the local authority. There are great people inside the local authority as well. The four members of staff will be appointed from within the local authority and obviously in consultation with the mayor. I would expect that the mayor would be involved in the interview process of anyone who is appointed to the office of mayor. I think that is very important.
I am conscious that there is a large number of staff members working in Limerick City and County Council. They want certainty. It was what was put to the people in a plebiscite that the staffing functions would remain with the director general, similar to any Government Department. What we have put in place here allows the mayor to take on a special adviser. There is such a wide skillset within the local authority. It is similar to how there is such a wide skillset in my departmental staff, both involved in the mayoral bill and other staff. It is hugely important that we involve that level of expertise, both within and without. On that basis, I believe that the amendment to this provision in the Dáil achieves the right balance. It now states there should be consultation with the mayor. Accordingly, I cannot accept these amendments. I know the spirit in which they were tabled, but this is something I have put a lot of thought into and I think we have struck a fair and reasonable balance.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 17, line 27, to delete “The director general, after consultation with the Mayor,” and substitute “The Mayor”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 17, line 27 to delete “The director general, after consultation with the Mayor,” and substitute “The Mayor, after consultation with the director general,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 18 agreed to.
Sections 19 to 22, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 23
Amendments Nos. 19, 20, 88 to 91, inclusive, 95 and 138 to 143, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.
Government amendment No. 19:
In page 20, lines 19 and 20, to delete “in so far as that reference applied before the vesting day” and substitute “in so far as that reference applies”.
I will speak to amendments No. 19, 20, 88 to 91, inclusive, 95, and 138 to 143, inclusive. These are minor technical and drafting amendments. Amendments No. 88 to 91, inclusive, and 95 to existing sections 65 and 66 are of a technical drafting nature and there is no change to the substantive provisions therein. The collective citation of the Affordable Housing Acts has been relocated to section 1 of the Bill.
Amendments No. 19 and 20 to sections 23 and 25 are for the purpose of ensuring consistency of language across various sections. Likewise, amendments Nos. 138 to 143, inclusive, to the chapeaus to the modifications of sections of the Local Government Act 2001 set out in Schedule 3 are similar and are for the purpose of ensuring consistency of language throughout that schedule.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 23, as amended, agreed to.
Section 24 agreed to.
SECTION 25
Government amendment No. 20:
In page 21, lines 5 and 6, to delete “in so far as that reference applied before the vesting day” and substitute “in so far as that reference applies”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 25, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 26
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 21, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:
“(5) Subject to section 145 of the Principal Act, the Mayor must be consulted regarding the appointment of the director general.”.
These amendments relate to the wider issue around the appointment of the chief executive in local government. Specifically, section 145 of the Local Government Act specifies the appointment of a chief executive is a reserved function of the elected council but gives the Minister the power to make regulations around the procedures.
At the moment, the county council is presented with a qualified candidate, which it may either accept or reject from the Public Appointments Service. Here, we are trying to give the elected council more of a role in selecting the best candidate for the role of director general and also ensure that the mayor, who will obviously have a significant working relationship with the director general, would be consulted. These are two roles that will work very closely together to the extent that functions can be delegated between the two roles. We therefore believe the mayor should have an input to the appointment of a director general arises during the term of a mayor.
Amendment No. 21 would insert a new subsection providing that the mayor would have to be consulted. Amendment No. 22 is technical and allows for amendment No. 23. Amendment No. 23 would insert a new section specifying that where a vacancy occurs in the office of director general, the responsibility for the new director general would sit with Limerick City and County Council; that those vacancies will be advertised with the Public Appointments Service, PAS, which will prepare a shortlist of not less than two and not more than four; and that the mayor will be able to provide written observations in relation to those suggested candidates. Therefore, in amendment No. 23 we are outlining a possible mechanism. In the other amendment, we are being a little wider in stating what the form of consultation might be.
Amendments Nos. 21, 22 and 23 from the Civil Engagement Group relate to the appointment of the director general in Limerick City and County Council. They propose a process that is not in line with current legislation and also that the mayor would have a role in that appointment. The appointment of a chief executive, and by extension a director general, is a reserved function of the local authority under section 145 of the Local Government Act 2001, wherein following a Public Appointments Service process, the council decides on the appointment. The Public Appointments Service will interview, but ultimately, it still has to come before the council, where there is a reserved function. It is important that the appointment process of a chief executive or director general is consistent across local authorities and in line with established practice. Like the mayor, the director general will be accountable to the council in the performance of their executive functions. It is important that the role of the council in the appointment of the director general continues, in the same way it did in the past for the chief executive. That is what is provided for in this Bill. That has not changed. It is a solid and reliable process. As an ex officio member of the council, the mayor will therefore have a role in the future appointment of a director general, not as an individual, but as part of the collective council.
As such, I cannot accept the amendments. I know where the Senator is coming from. When matters are looked at on a balanced level, however, people can see that we have a process. It is extremely important that the way the chief executive and directors general are appointed is consistent across local authorities. We want to get the best possible talent appointed. We have a very good chief executive at the moment in Dr. Pat Daly. We want to ensure the systems are robust. Ultimately, when it comes down to it, any appointment that comes through the Public Appointments Service has to be ratified as a reserve function by the council in chamber, which will now include the mayor as well. It will be 40 plus one. On that basis, I cannot accept these amendments.
I accept that the Minister of State does not like the mechanism I am suggesting in amendment No. 23, but it is important that there would be a mechanism. I am going to press amendment No. 21 and withdraw the other two.
The Senator has not moved those amendments yet. She cannot withdraw them until she moves them, but we will deal with them when we get to them. Is amendment No. 21 being pressed?
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 26 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 21, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:
“Amendment of section 145 of Principal Act
27. Section 145 of the Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (7)—
“(8) This section shall not apply in relation to Limerick City and County Council.”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 21, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:
“Appointment of director general
27. (1) Where a vacancy occurs in the office of the director general, the responsibility for appointment of a new director general shall lie with Limerick City and County Council.
(2) Such vacancies shall be advertised by the Public Appointments Service who shall prepare a shortlist of no less than two and no more than four suitable candidates to be submitted to the elected council.
(3) A copy of the shortlist referred to in subsection (2) shall also be submitted to the Mayor who prior to the consideration of an appointment by the elected council shall provide written observations on the suitability of candidates on the shortlist to the elected council.
(4) The elected council shall then select for appointment a suitable candidate from the shortlist by simple majority.”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 27
Amendments Nos. 24 to 27, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 21, line 27, after “writing” to insert “and with the approval by resolution of the elected council”.
These amendments relate to the power of the mayor to delegate functions to the director general. We previously discussed the extraordinarily large numbers of powers that are going to remain with the director general, the seven to eight pages in the Schedule, and the two to three additional pages that are going to be added on foot of Government amendments. There is also a provision in this Bill that allows for the mayor to delegate such functions as might remain with the mayor. As I said, the majority are still sitting with the director general but the mayor can actually delegate even more of their functions to the director general. Again, there is a concern. The Minister of State has not provided a mechanism whereby we can increase the powers that the mayor has versus the director general. We are not being given a mechanism for taking things out of the Schedule but what we are having is a mechanism whereby powers can be taken and moved from the mayor to the director general. Yes, they are still a function but-----
Delegated.
-----there is a transfer in one direction but not in the other. What I am really looking for are assurances, clarity and, to a degree, safeguards.
Amendment No. 24 would say that delegation made under subsection (1) would have to be approved by resolution of the elected council. If there is a mayor who is elected and says, "Well I do not actually want to do that anymore" and who wants to hand it over to the council, they would have to get the elected council's agreement.
Amendment No. 25 would insert a new provision whereby the mayor would, on an annual basis, provide a list of delegated functions to the elected council. If the mayor has decided to delegate functions, taking powers that currently sit with the mayor under this legislation and delegating them to the director general, then they need to be absolutely transparent and clear to the elected council, and the latter needs to be aware of that. It is really important, and it is also very important for the public. If the public has elected a mayor in the understanding that the powers here will sit with that person and those powers are transferred by the mayor into the hands of officials instead, the process in that regard needs to be transparent and we need to have clear awareness of it.
Amendment No. 26 provides that the elected council could, by resolution, revoke a delegation under this section. That is important in terms of accountability. What we do not want is a mayor failing to perform one of their key functions under this legislation, delegating it to a non-elected official and then trying to absolve themselves of responsibility and saying that this what they have chosen to do. The amendment would ensure that the council could say that the mayor is elected to perform a function as set out under the legislation and needs to continue performing it, and could revoke the delegation of said function.
Amendment No. 27 would insert a new provision to provide that upon the conclusion of a mayoral term, any delegations made under section 27 would stand revoked. Perhaps the Minister of State might clarify if that is going to be the cans in any event.
These amendments effectively relate to trying to ensure that whoever is elected by the people of Limerick as their mayor will perform the functions of mayor, that we do not see an erosion of the powers of the mayor and that we will not have a mayor who will say that because performing a function is difficult, they are going to hand it over to the officials. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that we have mayors who will fully step up in the context of their responsibilities and the opportunities and possibilities presented by the role to which they have been elected by the public.
I listened very carefully to Senator Higgins. While I do not feel there is a necessity for amendments Nos. 24 and 26 in terms of the council being able to reject or approve the delegation of functions, there is validity to amendment No. 25. There should be some basis for people knowing whether the mayor has decided to delegate a function or not. As Senator Higgins noted, perhaps what is suggested in amendment No. 27 is already captured in the legislation. If it is, that obviously negates the need for the amendment. It would seem logical that it would be the case that when a new mayoral term starts, we revert to the status quo of the legislation.
I thank Senators Higgins and Cummins for their comments. I will speak to Amendments No. 24 to 27, inclusive, from the Civil Engagement Group because they all relate to delegation of functions by the mayor.
Amendment No. 24 proposes that delegation of executive functions by the mayor to the director general should be subject to a resolution by the elected members. Any executive function that the mayor delegates to the director general is subject to the supervision and control of the mayor. The function remains a function of the mayor whether performed by them or by the director general. These are executive functions that vest in the mayor. It is a matter for the mayor to decide which, if any, functions they will delegate. It is delegation rather than transfer of powers.
Currently, a chief executive may delegate their functions to employees of the local authority and this is a matter for the chief executive and I believe it should be the same for the mayor. Separately, the elected council will be able to hold the mayor to account for the performance of their duties. Under section 17(4), to which I have already referred in our previous discussions, members may question the mayor with regard to the performance of their functions. The mayor is legally obliged to answer such questions. That is why it is very important that the council is chaired by a member of the other 40, and that is why there will be a speaker and a deputy speaker.
Arrangements for delegation of executive functions are proper to the executive. I do not think it should be subject to the approval of the elected council. Ultimately, the mayor is responsible for the performance of the function, whether by themselves personally or on their behalf. If the mayor delegates functions to the director general, he or she will still be responsible for those functions. It is the same as a chief executive in a local authority delegating to any member of their staff. They are still responsible to those in the council chamber for those particular functions. That is extremely important. Regarding the areas that remain with the chief executive and now the director general, they are responsible to the chamber for those as well separately.
Amendment No. 26 proposes that the elected council could revoke the delegation of a function. This appears to be linked to amendment No. 24, which proposes that members would approve a delegation. For the reasons I have already outlined, I cannot accept this amendment.
Amendment No. 25 proposes that the mayor will, on an annual basis, provide a list of delegated functions to the elected council. I have spoken to Senator Higgins about this. Senator Cummins also made reference to it. On the face of it, I have no difficulty with what is proposed by this amendment. In fact, currently there is a similar requirement on the chief executive to notify the council with regard to delegation of functions and the revocation of same. In accordance with standard practice, I ask Senator Higgins to withdraw the amendment and my Department will engage with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to draft an amendment that would have similar effect, which we can introduce on Report Stage.
Amendment No. 27 proposes that where a mayor has delegated a function to the director general, the delegation is deemed to be revoked upon the conclusion of a mayoral term. This came up previously in our debates in the Dáil. The Bill is clear on this point. An individual mayor may decide to delegate functions or not, or revoke or amend any delegations they make. In all cases, that power or function continues to vest in the mayor and remains performable by them. As I mentioned, the director general performs any delegated functions under the mayor’s superintendence. As a new mayor takes up office, the delegation orders made previously would fall. It is a default mechanism. The objective of the amendment is already implicit in the Bill and is not necessary. I thank the Senators for the amendment but I cannot accept it.
Amendment No. 27 is already provided for in the Bill. The Senator made a good point. Regarding amendment No. 25, we accept the tenet. If the Senator withdraws amendment No. 25, we will table a similar amendment on Report Stage. We believe the other amendments are not keeping with what was put to the people by plebiscite in respect of the role of the mayor vis-à-vis the CEO.
I thank the Minister of State for his indications and co-operation. I am glad to hear that the issue is addressed in respect of amendment No. 27. Regarding amendment No. 25, I am happy to engage with the Minister of State. I will withdraw it. Of course, I reserve the right to bring it back on Report Stage, but I am happy to engage with the Minister of State in the meantime.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 21, after line 39, to insert the following:
“(6) The Mayor shall, on an annual basis, provide a list of delegated functions to the elected council.”.
I will withdraw the amendment and I reserve the right to reintroduce it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 21, after line 39, to insert the following:
“(6) The elected council may by resolution revoke a delegation under this section.”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 27 not moved.
Section 27 agreed to.
Section 28 agreed to.
SECTION 29
Amendments Nos. 28 and 67 to 74, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 23, line 8, to delete “section 34.” and substitute the following:
“section 34;
“United Nations Sustainable Development Goals” means the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals 1 to 17 set out in the document entitled “Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, published by the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2015” or any document which amends or replaces that document.”.
Amendment No. 28 is somewhat technical but it relates to the wider set of amendments here. It seeks to insert the following definition of the United Nations sustainable development goals into Part 4 of the legislation. The United Nations sustainable development goals means those goals, Nos. 1 to 17, inclusive, "set out in the document entitled 'Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, published by the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2015' or any document which amends or replaces that document". The definition is the same one used in our Government’s own circular economy Act, so it is consistent with Government’s own legislation in this respect.
The sustainable development goals are important and crucial as a high point of a vision of what it might mean to live well on this planet together. They are a moment in terms of a vision for common humanity. At a time when that kind of universal positive vision for what a sustainable future for all of us might look like seems very difficult, it is important we hold to those moments and clear blueprints that remind us that a sustainable, more equitable and environmentally and socially sustainable future is possible.
Sustainable development goal No. 11 is particularly important because it relates to sustainable cities and communities. Bear in mind, Ireland is not just a signatory to the sustainable development goals; we were the key chairs of the negotiation process on these goals. It requires, under its target No. 11.3, that signatories would, “By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries [and all cities].” Theses amendments try to give effect to ensuring that the sustainable development goals are properly reflected in the functions of the mayor and the work that will be done by the future mayor.
Amendment No. 67 seeks to provide for the constitution of the Limerick Project Ireland 2040 delivery board by adding that the príomh chomhairleoir, effectively the chair of the council, would be a member of the board. This is a little bit different. Many of the things that will be in Project Ireland 2040 were campaigned, pressed and fought for by elected councillors. It would be appropriate that elected councillors would have a voice. The Minister of State spoke about that special and different power elected councillors have and their responsibility, which is different from the mayor. It is important there is a voice for elected councillors in the board delivering Project Ireland 2040. They are the ones who, in many cases, sought for issues and projects to be included in the development plans that are being delivered, so they indeed should have a voice. The Limerick city and county development plan was in itself a reserved function of the councillors. It is important its delivery under the Project Ireland 2040 group should be reflected by councillors and should have a councillor voice.
Amendment No. 68 is another version, which would have two members of the elected council on a biannual basis to be placed on the board. This is the same principle of ensuring the elected representatives who worked with the people of Limerick in the compilation of the development plan and contributed to the compilation of the national development plans would have a voice.
Amendment No. 69 seeks to amend the functions of the delivery board by providing that it would support implementation of the Paris Agreement, the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 and the United Nations sustainable development goals.
Amendment No. 70 reorders the listed priority implementations. This seems to be a small piece but it is on the items listed to ensure that in case it be interpreted that there is a prioritisation issue, we do not believe the national planning framework should be mentioned as the priority and first function but rather something that follows and surrounds the core work of this delivery board and the mayor. We propose the order to be: the Limerick city and county development plan, the Limerick-Shannon metropolitan area strategic plan, the national development plan and then the national planning framework. We have concerns that there could effectively be a board that is focused on the national planning framework to the neglect of the vision in the Limerick development plan set out by the public in electing their representatives.
I wish to step out for a moment. I have extensive notes but I will try to move through them. There are a number of amendments here and I have other amendments in other sections that relate to the functions of the mayor. I wish to highlight that a big missing piece in this legislation is the idea of a biodiversity of the environment or the idea of sustainable cities, yet we know that mayors are making an impact all around the world. We see what a mayor did in Paris, for example. It is mayors who are making a difference in many cases around sustainability.
Cities can lead. For example, C40 is a global network of mayors of the world’s leading cities who are united in action in respect of the climate crisis. I recall attending the climate talks when the United States had pulled back from the Paris Agreement. There was the We Are Still In movement, which was cities from across the United States that said they were still going to continue and deliver on the Paris Agreement, even if it was not being delivered at a national level by the United States. At a municipal level, they were committed to it.
A lot of what is happening and what is exciting in many cities around the world in terms of cities becoming drivers of new ways of doing things, of social, environmental and economic sustainability, and recognising our cities need to breathe, be biodiverse, be green spaces and have life in them, is in the biodiversity, environmental and sustainability space, and that is missing from the Bill. It is just not there at the moment. I will be proposing it in this section but also in other sections. I indicate that I do not believe this Bill should leave the Seanad without that massive gap having been addressed in some way
I will go through the amendments again. Amendment No.69 seeks to amend the functions of the delivery board to support implementation of the Paris Agreement, the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 and the United Nations sustainable development goals. Amendment No. 70 reorders the priorities. Amendment No. 71 would include the words "biodiversity protection and enhancement" and the provision of infrastructure relating to climate change mitigation and adaptation, because we are looking at both of these. This is vital in terms of water infrastructure and the rivers. Amendment No. 72, seeks to caveat the responsibilities of the arrangement, co-ordination and provision of social and economic regeneration measures with the provision that they should also be ecologically and socially sustainable. Amendment No. 73, insert a paragraph mandating the delivery board to support the arrangement, co-ordination and provision of climate action and biodiversity protection and enhancement measures.
Amendment No. 74 seeks to delete the provision in 33(4)(c) which requires the delivery board's mandate to co-ordinate initiatives, supports and funding in Limerick and in support of rural areas and regeneration of rural towns to be done in line with Government policy. The council in Limerick may have the option of supporting Government policy, but it should also have the ability to work imaginatively on its own initiative. There is no reason Limerick should not be ahead of Government policy. There is no reason Limerick should not be doing something better than Government. There is no reason something good might not happen in Limerick, particularly in terms of environment, biodiversity and sustainability, which could inspire other cities, the Government and even other cities around the world. Other countries might look to Limerick as a leader. Let us not have the constraint that this is just about delivering some Government policy at a local level and arranging the deck chairs. Limerick can do something new. It is really important there is the capacity for Limerick to lead and go beyond. I say that again in the context of having seen how cities around the world have often led on the environment and we have seen national governments catching up.
I thank Senator Higgins and the Civil Engagement Group. I will deal with what our response is and we can expand on that. I will speak to amendment No. 28 and amendments Nos. 67 to 74, inclusive, as they have been grouped for discussion.
The intention of amendment No. 28 is to extend the definitions in Part 4 by adding a reference to the United Nations sustainable development goals, as defined initially in that body's 2030 agenda for sustainable development. A central element in the State's long-term planning strategies for sustainability runs through Part 4, including the creation of the Limerick Project Ireland 2040 delivery board and the appointment of the mayor as chairperson. There is a focus on transport in Limerick, where the mayor will chair a subgroup dedicated to that issue. As sustainability is already central to Government planning, it follows that it will be stitched into future policy and legislative initiatives. Due to the importance that has rightfully been attached to the incorporation of sustainable development goals and sustainability in so many aspects of the State's activities, it is not essential to make explicit mention of the UN sustainable development goals in the list of definitions for this Part of the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 67 to 70, inclusive, in the name of the Civil Engagement Group propose a change to section 33 which establishes the Project Ireland 2040 delivery board. The amendments seek to change the structure of the board and to expand its functions and the ex officio members of the delivery board to include the príomh chomhairleoir and two councillors on a rotating basis. As chair of the board, the mayor has significant additional powers and is in a unique position to bring real added value to Limerick, especially on the delivery of infrastructure. The board as currently proposed is appropriate to achieve that aim. There is nothing to prohibit the mayor from bringing councillors on the board. That is entirely at the discretion of the mayor.
Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 would specify the promotion of sustainable objectives as part of the board's function and definition of UN sustainable development goals. These goals are built into national, regional and local frameworks such as the national development plan, regional spatial and economic strategies and city and county development plans, including those of Limerick city and county.
Amendments Nos. 71 to 73, inclusive, are in the areas of biodiversity and sustainability and seek to incorporate these matters into the work of the board. This important area is addressed by Ireland's fourth national biodiversity action plan, which is the first to be on a statutory footing thanks to the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2023. These frameworks aim to achieve the co-ordinated national response to the issues. In Limerick, the mayor and the delivery board will have regard to Government policy as it evolves in these fields. These obligations, requirements and aims relating to climate, biodiversity and sustainability do not need to be restated here so I do not propose to accept these amendments.
In addition, the proposal in amendment No. 74 to remove the reference to Government policy in the board's role in co-ordinating initiatives, supports and funding to support rural areas and the regeneration of rural towns would be counterproductive. Existing Government policy clearly supports our rural areas and the regeneration of towns and villages. The town and village renewal scheme and the rural regeneration scheme, are just two. Accordingly, I cannot accept this amendment.
The Bill in its current form is designed to create the structures the mayor will need to perform this work and I am satisfied with the generality of the provisions as they are drafted.
Will the Minister of State indicate where biodiversity is included in this Bill? The Minister of State has said he does not feel it is necessary in various ways and that other legislation exists. In this new Bill that is setting out the vision for Limerick and for the mayor and where lots of specific things are mentioned, such as cultural, rural and social development, as are employment, enterprise and tourism, where is the environment? There is lots of legislation and direct measures relating to all of those areas already, but we still have them mentioned here as well. I am wondering where the Minister of State sees biodiversity in respect of this. To be clear, I am not saying that we should not be implementing Government policy, it is the idea of Government policy-plus. The Minister of State mentioned that the Government is committed but there could be a new Government in six months' time. This is about future-proofing. Yes, we may have the Government policy but we need to recognise that if we did have a Government that failed to properly value Limerick and what it could deliver, we would have the capacity for policy initiatives to come from local level. Will the Minister of State clarify those two points?
Regarding the Project Ireland 2040 delivery board, which is what we are dealing with in this section, the Limerick city and county development plan, the national development plan, the national planning framework and climate change mitigation measures are mentioned. Furthermore, the UN sustainable development goals are built into national, regional and local frameworks such as the national development plan, the regional spatial and economic strategies and the city and county development plans, and they will help to shape the work of the mayor and the delivery board. We believe they are in the Bill but I note the points the Senator has raised.
Without committing, it is something I will look at between now and Report Stage. We believe the measures the Senator is talking about are incorporated in the Bill because the UN sustainable development goals are built into all our national policies. By definition, they flow down into our national planning framework, national development plan and city and county development plans, and of course Limerick city and county development plan incorporates those. I note the points the Senator has raised and it is something I will consider before Report Stage without giving a firm commitment.
I will be brief in response. One of the reasons this is important is because the bodies with which the Bill anticipates the delivery board engaging are involved in many things, such as rural, social and cultural development, employment, and enterprise and tourism, but again, environmental or heritage bodies are not mentioned in this context. The Bill refers to "including such bodies". I signal now that I may on Report Stage look to specify that the bodies with which the board will engage may include bodies in the areas of heritage and environment.
I have been tracking the sustainable development goals. We seem to simply be saying they are both everywhere and nowhere. They need to be everywhere. Too often we are told they influence everything so we do not need to include them in legislation. It seems the attitude is that because we are so committed to those goals, we do not need to mention them again. We find they are not included in many parts of our policy and are not so reflected because they are sitting somewhere else. I am a member of the Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action which is responsible for scrutiny of the sustainable development goals. Many Departments, not to mention local authorities, think the inclusion of those goals is somebody else's job. We need to make it clear it is everybody's job and must be named as part of everybody's job. I am going to take it in good faith that the Minister will engage on those issues. It will be a big missing piece if there is nothing in this legislation on the environment, sustainability or biodiversity. It has to come through. I wanted to say that to be clear that, on Report Stage, I may or may not bring these amendments again but I will be seeking to ensure the bodies engaged with include relevant environmental and heritage bodies. I am happy to liaise with the Minister to ensure the bodies I recommend are ones he believes to be appropriate.
Each local authority is required under the climate action legislation to produce climate action plans for five years. Limerick City and County Council is currently preparing its action plan and it will include all the sustainable goals. It is there. We have a planning Bill going through. It is all about a tiered system that flows from the top down. The UN sustainability goals are automatically incorporated into the Limerick city and county plan. Furthermore, they will be included in the climate action plan. The Senator and I spoke earlier and, without giving a commitment, it is a matter I will look at. That is as much as I can give. We will see.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 29 agreed to.
SECTION 30
Amendments Nos. 29 to 39, inclusive, are related. Amendment No. 39 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 38. Amendments Nos. 29 to 39, inclusive, may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 23, line 15, to delete "who shall be the chairperson of the consultative forum,".
This amendment would delete the provision that the Minister would be the chair of the Limerick mayor and government consultative forum. I believe it would be inappropriate for a Minister to chair the forum. The chair should not be a member of the national Government but should instead come from within local government structures.
Amendments Nos. 30 to 32, inclusive, are technical amendments.
Amendment No. 33 would grant that the príomh chomhairleoir would have a seat on the forum and, indeed, should be the chair of the forum. That would be more appropriate than the Minister as chair. It would give a voice to elected councillors and ensure the forum is mediated by somebody independent of both the mayor and the Government.
Amendment No. 34 is an alternative to amendment No. 33. It would grant a seat to the príomh chomhairleoir and provide for the nomination of two members of the elected council on a biannual basis.
Amendment No. 35 would allow the forum to make recommendations to the Minister around the conferral of additional functions to the mayor and, crucially, allow for the provision of recommendations on additional revenue-raising powers for the elected council. This is another way in which we could strengthen the powers that are given to the mayor and use the elected council as the safety net or the check and balance on the strengthening of those powers.
Amendment No. 36 would insert a new paragraph to allow the forum to make recommendations on the conferral of such additional functions on the elected council for the effective and sustainable operation of Limerick City and County Council.
Amendment No. 37 would amend subsection (7) to provide that the chair would be the person who fixes the date and time of the first meeting of the forum.
These are in some cases quite technical amendments that are about making the forum more effective and, crucially, strengthening the voices of elected representatives on the forum.
Amendments Nos. 29 to 39, inclusive, are grouped for discussion as they relate to the Limerick mayoral and government consultative forum, and I will address these together. Amendments Nos. 29 to 34, inclusive, propose an expansion in the membership requirements for the forum to include the príomh chomhairleoir as well as two members of the elected council, and to transfer the role of chair from the Minister to the príomh chomhairleoir.
Amendment No. 37 is a consequential amendment to amendment No. 34.
The function of the Limerick mayoral and government consultative forum is to facilitate engagement between the mayor and national Government. It will also have a role in considering and making recommendations on the future development of the role of mayor. The appointment of the príomh chomhairleoir as chair and the inclusion of elected members would completely change the focus and dynamic of the forum from what was intended.
Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 seek to amend the functions of the forum to include matters relating to the introduction of additional functions and revenue-raising powers for the elected council. However, the forum is a platform for engagement between the mayor and national Government and consideration of the role and function of the office of mayor. Therefore, I am not in a position to accept these amendments.
Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 seek to increase the frequency of consultative forum meetings, increasing from twice per year to three times annually. The Bill already provides that in addition to the two meetings which must be held annually, as many further meetings as are necessary shall also be held. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the section as currently drafted strikes the appropriate balance and I cannot accept this amendment.
I will go back to the background of the consultative forum. It arose out of a recommendation of the implementation group, of which Mr. Tim O'Connor was chair. It was modelled on the consultative forum that was established by the terms of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It is a mechanism. We are providing it with a secretariat through the Department. It is, effectively, a forum. When it was originally constituted, it was intended the Minister would chair it and direct when meetings would take place. I have changed that. It now has a plenary sitting twice a year and can sit at any additional time as required by either party, the mayor or the Minister and the Government. It is a forum for the mayor. It will be the first time a directly elected mayor will have a statutory right to engage in a plenary session with the Government on issues of importance for Limerick. It will discuss additional powers for the mayor that may come forth, including revenue-raising powers. It is involved in looking at the whole area of the future of the mayoralty. It is novel, but is ultimately about the mandate the mayor gets. This, once again, is about bringing additionality. The chamber stays intact with reserved powers. This is about the mayor interacting with the Government and sharing the power in respect of when meetings take place. The Seanad will note that I have not stated that meetings must take place every six months. I have stated they should take place between every five and every seven months to give flexibility. On that basis, I believe a balance is struck. Furthermore, the mayor brings enhancement and additionality, which is what we want, above the reserved powers of the councillors in the chamber as they stand. Those powers remain intact. On that basis, I cannot accept the amendments although I note they are well meant.
Amendment No. 29 is important. The idea of engagement is great but having the Minister as chair is a little bit of an imbalance. I will press amendment No. 29 but am happy to come back to the other amendments.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 23, line 17, line 16, to delete “and”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 23, line 17, to delete “the Mayor.” and substitute “the Mayor, and”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 23, line 17, to delete “the Mayor.” and substitute “the Mayor,”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 23, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:
“(d) the Príomh Chomhairleoir, who shall be the chairperson of the consultative forum.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 23, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:
“(d) the Príomh Chomhairleoir, who shall be the chairperson of the consultative forum, and
(e) two members of the elected council nominated on a bi-annual basis by resolution of the elected council.”
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 23, line 24, after “Council” to insert “and the potential for the introduction of additional revenue-raising powers for the elected council”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 23, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:
“(d) the conferral of such additional functions on the elected council for the effective and sustainable operation of Limerick City and County Council,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 37 not moved.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 24, to delete lines 7 and 8 and substitute the following:
“(a) subject to paragraph (b), three times in each year at intervals of not more than 4 months, and”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 39 not moved.
Section 30 agreed to.
As it is 8.30 p.m. I am required to adjourn.
Can we have another minute?
Sorry, as it is 8.30 p.m. the debate on this Bill must adjourn in accordance with the order of the Seanad today. Can I ask Senator Cummins to report progress please?
I report progress.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
When is it proposed to sit again?
Tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Cuireadh an Seanad ar athló ar 8.31 p.m. go dtí 10.30 a.m., Dé Céadaoin, an 14 Feabhra 2024.
The Seanad adjourned at 8.31 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 14 February 2024.