Amendments Nos. 40 to 46, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill 2023: Committee Stage (Resumed)
SECTION 31
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 24, line 21, to delete “consideration” and substitute “approval”.
I will discuss the amendments together, if that is okay, and I will move Senator Higgins’s amendments.
Amendment No. 40 is very simple. It gives more powers back to councillors rather than the issue of consideration. Councillors would have to approve a mayoral programme.
Amendment No. 41 gives councillors more time to consider the programme before it is discussed at the meeting. It changes the length of time for consideration from seven days to 14 days, which is worthwhile because often councillors are part time and will be in work, so it gives them a bit of an extension to be able to consider it.
Amendment No. 44 seeks to insert a new subsection which would provide that the members of elected council may move amendments to the mayoral programme at the meeting referred to in subsection (3) and the mayor shall either accept such amendments or reject them and provide a rational for rejection. This amendment will give councillors an enhanced role in the formation of the programme but will still ensure that the mayor has the autonomy and authority to set the agenda.
Amendment No. 45 seeks to ensure that copies of the mayoral programme will be made available for consultation and borrowing at all public libraries in Limerick in order to ensure accessibility, inclusivity and that the digital divide does not prevent people from reading the mayoral programme.
Amendment No. 46 would insert a new subsection (7) which requires that a version of the mayoral programme be produced and made available in plain English. That is fundamental to accessibility and inclusivity and it is a requirement under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It is a relatively simple amendment that would have tangible benefits for people.
I urge the Minister of State to accept these amendments, particularly amendment No. 46 in respect of the requirement for plain English. One of the aspects of creating an inclusive and accessible city of Limerick is that everyone can appreciate and engage with the programme that the mayor wants to implement during their time office. Our cities belong to each and every one of us. They should be spaces we can collaboratively and imaginatively remake together.
UN data shows that more than 30% of persons with disabilities in some countries found that transportation and public spaces are not accessible. It also shows that a great deal of public housing globally is inaccessible to disabled people. The facts are well documented, and change is needed. In 2011, the World Health Organization reported that disabled people are less likely to either socialise or work in the absence of accessible transport.
They are all things that are well known and have been well discussed. Going back to the mayoral programme and accessibility, this amendment is important because it signals that we are not only going to say our disabled citizens matter, we will create urban spaces which belong to and are shaped by disabled people.
I will be brief. Senator Moynihan spoke on amendments Nos. 40, 41, and 44 to 46, inclusive, and I concur with her. She set out the rationale and the argument concisely. I join with her, support those amendments and speak in favour of them.
I apologise for being delayed. I thank the Acting Chair and Members for their indulgence.
I will speak to amendments Nos. 40 to 46, inclusive, in the name of the Labour Party, Civil Engagement Group and Sinn Féin Senators as they have been grouped for discussion. These amendments relate to the requirement for the mayor to present a draft of the mayoral programme for consideration by the elected council at an ordinary meeting and to propose a range of suggestions for potential amendments to the programme, public consultation on the programme and the availability and accessibility of the programme. The section, as it currently stands, requires the mayor to consider any comments or observations made by members of the elected council at the meeting. I am satisfied that taking into account those comments or observations from members may lead to the mayor making amendments to the mayoral programme. Regarding public consultation, it is important to remember that the democratically elected mayor will run on a manifesto which will be put before the people of Limerick and will be elected on that basis. The mayor would then prepare a mayoral programme that reflects that. That seems to me to be the best form of public consultation.
On a separate point, I note it is somewhat of a contradiction to provide for a non-statutory public consultation in legislation. On the accessibility and availability of the final programme, the provision as currently drafted provides sufficient means to access the programme, both electronically and in hard copy. It is my view that the provisions of the Bill are sufficient to deal with all these issues. I am minded to look at bringing forward one aspect, namely amendment No. 41, which looks to extend the period within which a mayoral programme is provided from seven to 14 days before the meeting. I am minded to work with that amendment and I will bring forward an amendment on Report Stage to reflect that.
It is my view that the provisions of the Bill are sufficient to deal with all these issues and accordingly the proposed amendments are unnecessary. However, I certainly will accept the thrust of amendment No. 41 tabled by the Civil Engagement Group to increase the number of days for which the draft mayoral programme will be available to councillors from seven to 14 days before the meeting and I will bring forward an amendment to that effect on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 41:
In page 24, line 24, to delete “7 days” and substitute “14 days”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 42:
In page 24, lines 27 and 28, to delete “comments or observations” and substitute “comments, observations and potential amendments”.
Are you pressing the amendment?
I will press it.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 24, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following:
“(6) The Mayor shall, before finalising the Mayoral programme, undertake a process of non-statutory public consultation with the people of Limerick City and County regarding the Mayoral programme.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 44:
In page 24, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following:
“(6) Members of the elected council may move amendments to the Mayoral programme at meetings referred to in subsection (3) and the Mayor shall either:
(a) accept such amendments; or
(b) reject such amendments and provide a rationale for such rejection in writing to the elected council.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 45:
In page 24, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following:
“(c) made available for consultation and borrowing at libraries within the administrative area of Limerick City and County Council,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 46:
In page 24, after line 39, to insert the following:
“(7) A version of the Mayoral programme shall be produced and made available in plain English.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 31 agreed to.
SECTION 32
Amendments Nos. 47 to 66, inclusive, are related. Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 are physical alternatives to amendment No. 47. Amendments Nos. 47 to 66, inclusive, may be discussed together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 47:
In page 25, to delete lines 9 and 10 and substitute the following:
“(b) such number of members of Limerick City and County Council appointed by the Mayor as the Mayor considers appropriate, who shall be nominated for appointment in accordance with paragraph 18 of Schedule 2 to the Local Government Act 2001, and".
Does the Senator wish to speak to the amendment?
It is pretty self-explanatory. Each of the amendments in this grouping relates to the mayoral advisory council. It proposes that the mayor be able to appoint the number of people he, she or they considers appropriate.
Does anyone else wish to speak on this grouping?
Is amendment No. 48 in this grouping?
Yes, it is amendments Nos. 47 to 66, inclusive.
I can speak to amendment No. 48, which is the Sinn Féin amendment. It proposes that members of Limerick City and County Council would be appointed by the d'Hondt system. With reference to local democracy, it is important that there is a democratic element to the selection of members of the Limerick mayoral advisory and implementation committee. We believe the current wording is too broad and has the potential for the mayor to only select councillors from his or her party. The introduction of a democratic selection process is important to ensure that all elected councillors have an equal opportunity to participate in this forum. The d'Hondt system would be the most democratic means of achieving that.
I absolutely agree with this. Senator Boylan has made it clear. The Association of Irish Local Government, AILG, uses the d'Hondt system. Many local authorities use the d'Hondt system for various committees and sub-committees. It is important that it is representative. It gives support and legitimacy to what are, in effect, equal, valued members of a local authority. They have been elected by the people. They are in a local democracy, a local parliament. For far too long, we have had sub-divisions based on political affiliations in some councils. Some councils are more progressive than others so it varies in each of the 31 councils. I understand that amount of flexibility, but let us be clear: these are people who have been elected through the democratic process. They put themselves forward for election, set out their stalls and received a mandate. There would be no ambiguity about it. We should be putting in primary legislation specific issues around the d'Hondt system in the context of the mayor of Limerick. I support this amendment.
The d'Hondt system has worked in some cases, but there is an irony in it being proposed here, given that in 2019 in Waterford, the d'Hondt system having been in operation for five years previously, when the opportunity arose for Sinn Féin, Independents, the Labour Party and everyone else to exclude Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil from an arrangement, they took it with open arms, without allowing any opportunity for the d'Hondt system to be introduced. It may suit at some times and not at others. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
It is interesting that Senator Cummins is making the argument for why the amendment should be supported.
I did not support it.
Allow Senator Boylan to speak ithout interruption.
I thank my colleague for speaking in support of the amendment and of the d'Hondt system. He made it clear in his contribution.
What we seek to do with amendment No. 50 is to include a wider swathe of public opinion to these positions to ensure that communities, unions and employers would also be represented. It is a simple amendment to insert "including, but not limited to, businesses, trade unions, Community and Voluntary Sector organisations,”.
I thank Members for their contributions. Amendments Nos. 47 to 66, inclusive, have been grouped for discussion so I will speak about them as a whole. Amendments Nos. 47 to 50, inclusive, seek to change how council members and others are to be appointed to the advisory and implementation committee. The role of the committee will be to support the mayor in preparing and implementing their mayoral programme.
It is in my view entirely fitting that the mayor should be the person to appoint the committee members to have broad representation in this committee. I do not believe that amendments constraining the mayor in this regard would be beneficial to the overall functioning of the office of mayor. For that reason, I cannot accept these amendments. This particular Limerick mayor advisory and implementation committee is for the implementation of the mayor's programme. The mayor will be getting up to €8 million per year from the Exchequer towards that programme, which he or she will put by way of a manifesto to the people. It is, therefore, very much an advisory group within section 32. It provides for members of Limerick City and County Council to be on that committee as well.
The removal of the word “and” in amendment No. 49 does not appear to have any purpose and, accordingly, I cannot accept it. The reference in amendment No. 47 to "paragraph 18 of Schedule 2 to the Local Government Act" is incorrect and similar to the reference in paragraph 18 of Schedule 10. It is only a technical point. We can all make those.
Amendments No. 51 to 60 seek to add detail to the functions of the committee in areas including biodiversity, sustainable development goals, social cohesion and social inclusion, culture, creativity, the arts, music, the Irish language, an inclusive public realm for Limerick, social and cultural participation in Limerick, intergenerational activities, and the Traveller culture and specifically the social, educational, and economic inclusion of members of the Travelling Community in Limerick.
In the interest of bringing coherence and a degree of flexibility to the functions, I have not attempted to list every individual policy area. For that reason, I believe the functions as drafted will work well and I am not minded to accept the amendments. We have tried to be very inclusive within section 32(5), which proposes to:
(c) ... foster and support economic, touristic, social and cultural activities in Limerick ...
(d) ... sustain employment in Limerick ...
(e) ...enhance cooperation between nominating bodies,
(f) ...the consideration of any matter that may affect Limerick or Limerick City and County Council ...
(g) the coordination in Limerick of initiatives, services and funding giving effect to Government policy to support rural areas, and
(h) the coordination in Limerick of measures giving effect to Government policy ... [including] the regeneration of towns.
I want to give that flexibility. The mayor can cover any area within the committee.
Amendments No. 61 and 62 relate to the removal of references to Government policy with regard to support for rural areas and the regeneration of towns. I cannot overemphasise the importance of working in collaboration with existing and future Government policies in these areas and, therefore, I cannot accept these amendments. When the Bill was originally drafted, it had separate defined committees for rural and urban areas. Limerick City and County Council is one of those local authorities that amalgamated, and Senator Cummins will be well aware of this in Waterford. It is about bringing people together. It is up to the mayor if he or she wished to set up defined separate committees for rural areas. I have no issue with that. However, it is important that we show this cohesion because, certainly, it is a key feature in bringing the two local authorities together, one from, let us say, a city focus and one from an urban one but with a large rural focus.
Amendments Nos. 63 and 64 relate to issues such as the inclusion of urban areas with regard to the regeneration of towns in Limerick and the re-municipalisation of waste services in Limerick. I believe the functions, as drafted, will work well. I am not minded to accept the amendments. We already discussed that at length under various legislation. That stays with the CEO and the Executive.
Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 relate to a role for elected members for the dissolution of a committee, and the potential for a member of a committee or subcommittee to recuse themselves, if appropriate. In respect of dissolving committees, this structure is specific to the role of mayor. I believe it is appropriate that the mayor should make that decision. I do not think we should have a situation of setting up a committee and having a mayor implement his or her programme and then someone who is not the mayor could basically dissolve it. That is not the purpose. This legislation is written in the positive, not in the negative. It is about being forward looking and having engagement and collaboration rather than any form of conflict.
Regarding a member recusing themselves where they have a conflict, the Bill as it stands provides for just such a mechanism. Consequently, I do not think a further amendment is necessary here.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 48:
In page 25, to delete lines 9 and 10 and substitute the following:
“(b) such members of Limerick City and County Council appointed by the D’Hondt system, and”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 49:
In page 25, line 10, to delete “and”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 50:
In page 25, line 12, after “subsection (4),” to insert “including, but not limited to, businesses, trade unions, Community and Voluntary Sector organisations,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 51:
In page 25, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following: “(c) to promote, foster and support climate action in Limerick, both in the urban and rural areas thereof,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 52:
In page 25, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:
“(c) to promote, foster and support the protection and enhancement of biodiversity in Limerick, both in the urban and rural areas thereof,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 53:
In page 25, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:
“(c) to promote, foster and support the achievement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, particularly Goal 11 on sustainable cities and communities, in Limerick, both in the urban and rural areas thereof,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 54:
In page 25, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:
“(c) to promote, foster and support economic and touristic activities in Limerick, both in the urban and rural areas thereof,
(d) to promote, foster and support social cohesion and social inclusion in Limerick, both in the urban and rural areas thereof,
(e) to promote, foster and support culture, creativity and the arts, including music, in Limerick, both in the urban and rural areas thereof,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 55:
In page 25, line 24, after “social” to insert “, music”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 56:
In page 25, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:
“(d) to promote, foster and support the Irish language in Limerick, both in the urban and rural areas thereof,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 57:
In page 25, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:
“(d) to promote, foster and support an inclusive public realm and social and cultural participation in Limerick, both in the urban and rural areas thereof,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 58:
In page 25, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:
“(d) to promote, foster and support social cohesion and social inclusion in Limerick, both in the urban and rural areas thereof,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 59:
In page 25, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:
“(d) to promote, foster and support intergenerational activities in Limerick, both in the urban and rural areas thereof,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 60:
In page 25, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:
“(d) to promote, foster and support Traveller culture and the social, educational and economic inclusion of Travellers in Limerick, both in the urban and rural areas thereof,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 61:
In page 25, lines 32 and 33, to delete “and funding giving effect to Government policy” and substitute “, policies and funding”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 62:
In page 25, lines 34 and 35, to delete “giving effect to Government policy” and substitute “, policies and funding”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 63:
In page 25, line 35, after “towns” to insert “and urban areas”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 64:
In page 25, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following:
“(6) The committee shall also, within 12 months of its establishment, examine the potential for the re-municipalisation of waste services in Limerick and shall look to international best practice in this regard.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 65:
In page 26, to delete lines 15 and 16 and substitute the following:
“(9) The Mayor may at any time, subject to the approval of elected members, dissolve a committee or subcommittee established under this section.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 66:
In page 26, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:
“(13) Where an item comes before a committee or subcommittee in which a member of that committee or subcommittee has a material interest that member shall declare that they have such an interest and recuse themselves from a vote or decision on any such item.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 32 agreed to.
SECTION 33
I move amendment No. 67:
In page 26, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following:
“(b) the Príomh Chomhairleoir,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 68:
In page 26, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following:
“(b) 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. 69:
In page 27, line 9, after “the” where it firstly occurs, to insert “Paris Agreement, the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015, as amended, United Nations Sustainable Development Goals,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 70:
In page 27, to delete lines 9 to 11 and substitute the following:
“implementation in Limerick of the objectives of the Paris Agreement, the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015, as amended, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, the Limerick City and County Development Plan, the Limerick-Shannon metropolitan area strategic plan, the National Development Plan and the National Planning Framework,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 71:
In page 27, line 15, after “services” to insert “, biodiversity protection and enhancement”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 72:
In page 27, line 18, after “the” to insert “ecologically and socially sustainable”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 73:
In page 27, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:
“(iii) the arrangement, co-ordination and provision of climate action and biodiversity protection and enhancement measures,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 74:
In page 27, lines 26 and 27, to delete “giving effect to Government policy”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 33 agreed to.
SECTION 34
Amendments No. 75 to 80, inclusive, are related. Amendment No. 78 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 77. Amendments No. 75 to 80, inclusive, may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 75:
In page 28, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:
“(b) two members of the elected council nominated on a bi-annual basis by resolution of the elected council,”.
Amendment No. 75 seeks to provide that two members to the elected council, nominated on a bi-annual basis by resolution of the elected council, will be members of the Limerick Project Ireland 2040 delivery board’s transport subgroup. Input from the elected officials closest to the people is essential when making decisions around transport policy.
I wish to voice the support of the CEG for amendment No. 76 in the names of Senators Garvey and Pauline O’Reilly, as it is a constructive and positive amendment that will help to ensure that transport policy delivers for climate action and that there is real climate expertise on the subgroup.
Amendment No. 77 seeks to amend subsection (4)(a) by including additional functions for the subgroup in terms of supporting the Paris Agreement, the climate Act and the sustainable development goals.
Amendment No. 78 reorders paragraph (a) to ensure that locally decided statutory plans, including the city and council development plan, are first given priority in terms of supporting implementation.
Amendment No. 79 seeks to insert a new subsection in section 34 to mandate the Limerick Project Ireland 2040 delivery board’s transport subgroup to perform its functions in a manner consistent with the achievement of the obligations under the Paris Agreement, the achievement of the sustainable development goals, in particular goal No, 11 on sustainable cities and communities, the achievement of the national climate objectives under the climate Act and the full implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Amendment No. 80 seeks to insert a new subsection in section 34 to mandate the Limerick Project Ireland 2040 delivery board’s transport subgroup to perform its functions in a manner that advances climate action, biodiversity and the protection and enhancement of goals under our national and international obligations.
I support these amendments. I am particularly interested in amendment No. 76. Senators Garvey and Pauline O’Reilly are not present to move it, but may I discuss it?
The amendment is interesting and I thank the Senators for their support. They are Government Members and they have a view on the amendment. I would be interested in hearing what the Minister of State has to say. The Senators’ focus is on the Climate Change Advisory Council and the knowledge and experience around practicalities that it possesses. The Senators are members of the Green Party, which is in the tripartite coalition Government with the Minister of State, so I presume he has had time to consider and reflect on this amendment. Will he share his views on it and say whether he is in a position to accept it?
I commend the Senators on attaching their names to what is a reasonable, practical and important amendment for our consideration.
Amendments Nos. 75 to 80 on the transport subgroup are similar to the amendments proposed to section 33 and many of the same points apply.
I feel that the membership of the subgroup as provided for is appropriate, so I do not propose to accept amendment No. 75.
Amendment No. 76 seeks to include a representative of the Climate Change Advisory Committee in the subgroup. That committee was established under the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 and is an independent body that advises the Government. Its remit is wider than transport and requires expertise in climate science, energy policy and economics. As such, it would not be appropriate for a member of the committee to fulfil the proposed function, which focuses on a single issue within a single local authority. However, I note that section 34(3) of the Bill gives the mayor the power to invite nominees from other public bodies in the field of transport. This is more appropriate. While we are not accepting this amendment, its thrust, which relates to climate, is a matter that I am considering with a view to tabling something on Report Stage. That will be in the broader context, though.
Regarding amendments Nos. 77 to 80, the Paris Agreement, the UN sustainable development goals and the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 inform the work of the delivery board and, consequently, the transport subgroup. The national biodiversity plan is statutory and local authorities must integrate biodiversity into their frameworks. I am wary of explicitly listing a small number of instruments when these and other high-level international and national agreements, Acts and conventions are interwoven into the Bill and its operation. As a result, I cannot accept these amendments.
I understand the thrust of these amendments, but for the reasons I have given, I am not minded to accept them. Regarding amendment No. 76 on the Climate Change Advisory Committee, I will consider the issue and reserve the right to table amendments on Report Stage.
I note the Minister of State’s comments on amendment No. 76, but climate change and climate action are at the very heart of local government and are Government policy. The Government empowered local authorities in this regard and there is a great deal of focus on climate change. The Department of local government is responsible for them. In fairness, the Minister of State commends them constantly. We know the importance and significance of local councils driving action on climate change. While we are not focusing on that matter today, I am encouraged. Senator Garvey was not present earlier when I spoke about this. I thank her and Senator Pauline O’Reilly for proposing – actually, “tabling” is the correct word – this amendment. I encourage the Minister of State to revert on this. We have to send out a strong and clear message to our local authorities. While this Bill is about a specific mayor, the Minister of State is committed to empowering and supporting all local authorities in this area. It is important that we embed that commitment in primary legislation rather than regulation. We seem to be running afraid of primary legislation, but primary legislation is our function in these Houses while the Minister has responsibility for regulations.
This is a significant, good and positive amendment and I am encouraged by the fact that the Minister of State will do something about it. He is on record as saying that he will revert on Report Stage with proposals around the amendment’s subject matter. Is my understanding correct?
Yes. Just to give context, though-----
I must call Senator Garvey.
Sorry.
I thank the Minister of State for attending. We spoke about this amendment previously and he has done a great deal of work on the matter, for which I thank him. Our amendment is an important one, but I will not need to press it if we can get clarity on Report Stage.
This is very serious. It is very important. I have seen who will be on the board and they are all very good people but one cannot be an expert on everything. We need representation from a statutory body, if not the Climate Change Advisory Council, perhaps the EPA or somebody. TII is great but they are roads people. That is different from having an understanding of climate and future-proofing Limerick as a city and county. There must be somebody else there with expertise other than the people who have been named and we owe that to the future of Limerick and to proper planning, design and the use of space. The people who have been suggested to be on the board now are all brilliant in their own ways but this is not their expertise We need somebody who has the expertise on the board. I am committed to this and very serious about it. We want this and nothing short of a clear commitment in writing on Report Stage will be accepted.
To give context, under the climate action legislation - to give it its formal name the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act, 2015 - section 14B of that Act requires that all local authorities are now required under a statutory basis to prepare climate action plans. Limerick City and County Council are currently preparing theirs. It is about to be finalised. It went out on consultation in draft form. Guidelines were issued by the Minister for Environment, Climate and Communications, Deputy Eamon Ryan, to the local authorities and they were quite specific. The local authorities must meet targets. One of the major sections of that is transport and the local authorities have reporting requirements right up to the Department. I very much note the content. The Bill itself has been structured on the basis that it is a hugely important part of the mayor's role to ensure that those climate action plans are implemented. They are plans and there are reporting requirements that must meet targets. I thank Senator Garvey for her indulgence and I have committed to come back on Report Stage and have discussions around this area in order to deal with the whole area. I know the point the Senator made but I would appreciate further discussion on it. I will come back with an amendment on Report Stage.
I thank the Minister of State for indicating he is interested in coming back on Report Stage with regard to these areas. As we have discussed with the Minister of State directly, as well as in the Chamber, I believe it is vital the Bill does not leave the Chamber without some area of the environment, biodiversity and the SDGs being recognised. In that context I will withdraw a number of these amendments but they will come back on Report Stage. I hope the Minister of State will be either working with us or accepting one of my amendments, or bringing forward his own amendments. I just want to make sure on that-----
I have given a commitment on that.
---that we get something solid into the Bill and not just the thought. I thank the Minister of State for his engagement on that matter.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Is amendment No. 76 in the names of Senators Garvey and Pauline O'Reilly being moved?
I will not press the amendment. I will not move it.
Amendment No. 76 not moved.
I move amendment No. 77:
In page 28, to delete lines 32 to 35 and substitute the following:
“of the Paris Agreement, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, the Limerick City and County Development Plan, the Limerick-Shannon metropolitan area strategic plan, the National Development Plan and the National Planning Framework in relation to the provision of transport infrastructure and services in Limerick, and”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 78:
In page 28, to delete lines 32 to 35 and substitute the following:
“of the Limerick City and County Development Plan, the Limerick-Shannon metropolitan area strategic plan, the National Development Plan and the National Planning Framework in relation to the provision of transport infrastructure and services in Limerick, and”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 79:
In page 28, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following:
“(5) In carrying out functions under subsection (4), the transport sub-group shall act in a manner consistent with—
(a) achievement of obligations under the Paris Agreement,
(b) achievement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, particularly Goal 11 on sustainable cities and communities,
(c) achievement of the national climate objective under the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015, as amended, and
(d) implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 80:
In page 28, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following:
“(5) A report prepared under subsection (4) shall outline the manner in which the transport sub-group have performed their functions in a manner which advances climate action and
biodiversity protection and enhancement goals, both with regard to national and international obligations.”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 34 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS
I move amendment No. 81:
. In page 29, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:
“European Union funding
35. For the avoidance of doubt, the Mayor may apply on behalf of Limerick City and County Council for European Union funding or grants in order to further or initiate projects or
policies within Limerick City and County.”.
Amendment No. 81 seeks to insert a new section into the Bill. This is important and ties into some of the environmental matters we have addressed. Amendment No. 81 seeks to provide that the mayor could apply "on behalf of Limerick City and County Council for European Union funding or grants in order to further or initiate projects or policies within Limerick City and County.". I hope it is just a clarifying provision and the Minister of State will be able to come back to me and tell me the mayor will already have those powers and that he or she will not need to seek approval from the Government for that. I want to have that clear. For example we know certain cities have been a lot better at applying for EU funding than others. For example, the new mayor of Limerick may want to development a partnership with another European city and wish to access some of the funds which are directly available only to municipalities and cities. This could be around environmental issues and initiatives or any type of initiatives such as sustainability, regeneration, intergenerational and youth initiatives and public space initiatives. There are a lot of kinds and forms of funding available to European cities both individually and when working in co-operation with other European cities. The hope would be that the mayor, because he or she will have a short time period, would be able to step in and take advantage and give leadership around applying to those and not solely be dependent on Government schemes. It would be where the European Union allows for a direct application from a municipality that the mayor would be able to initiate that process. Maybe that is already the case or envisaged to be the case so I hope this is just a clarification but perhaps the Minister of State can make that clarification.
I will be interested to hear the Minister of State's comments. From my reading of the legislation I consider there is nothing precluding what is being looked for here in the legislation and that is the important piece. Is there something precluding it? No. Therefore the local authority will be able to engage with the European Union with regard t all of those funding streams that are appropriate to municipalities. That is a good thing and I am sure the mayor of Limerick, when he or she is in position, will avail of the vast array of opportunities that are in place. I am satisfied there is nothing precluding what is being looked for here, in the Bill.
Amendment No. 81 proposes adding a new section in the Bill to empower the mayor of Limerick to apply for EU funding on behalf of Limerick City and County Council.
Currently, EU funding applications are signed by the figures with the legal status to sign on behalf of their organisation, and this is in line with guidance issued by the European Commission. There is currently nothing in the Bill that precludes the mayor of Limerick from signing or co-signing such an application in the case of Limerick. Nor indeed does the Local Government Act preclude the chief executive of any other local authority, as the executive head, from signing an application for EU funding.
It is unclear from the proposed amendment what the envisaged application process is. Funding schemes, such as the European Regional Development Fund, are frequently administered by regional assemblies. The mayor will be a member of the Southern Regional Assembly - that is something I specifically put into the Bill - and so will be well-positioned to take a proactive approach in pursuing potential funding measures.
Senators are correct that securing money from EU schemes helps Limerick City and County Council in realising its ambitions and it has been very successful in this area. The Bill, as drafted, does not prevent the Mayor from signing or co-signing an application. In fact, section 149(5) of the Local Government Act provides that a chief executive can enter into contracts and fix the local authority seal; as per the note at Schedule 2 of the Bill this will apply to the mayor when he or she takes up office. Once again, we see the devolution of powers in action.
It not clear what legislative function the amendment is seeking to assign. The fact that the provision states it is “for the avoidance of doubt” suggests the amendment is not really required. I know the Senator's sentiments and she has qualified her comments in that regard. Therefore, while I have no difficulty with the sentiment of the amendment, I cannot see how it translates into a clear, implementable provision. I believe the intent of the amendment is already covered in the Bill.
In light of the fact that the Minister of State has indicated that it does seem to be the case, both directly and through the regional assembly, that there will be that capacity, I will withdraw the amendment. I think it is very useful to have such clarification on the record.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Before moving on, I welcome guests of the Minister, Deputy Norma Foley, the Hayes family, also Judith Hayes and the Niamh Murray committee. You are welcome to the Gallery and I wish you well and hope you enjoy your day.
If I may, I would also like to acknowledge a former Member of the Houses, former Deputy Mary Upton, was previously in the Gallery about ten minutes ago and she left.
We acknowledge former Deputy Mary Upton as well.
I move amendment No. 82:
In page 29, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:
Co-operation agreements
35. (1) The Mayor may, with the permission of the elected council, enter into co-operation agreements with other cities or municipalities both in the European Union and the wider world in order to advance diplomatic, cultural, environmental, social and economic relationships.
(2) Such co-operation agreements may also be entered into with other European Union cities or municipalities for the purposes of participating in European Union projects.”.
This seeks to insert a new section into the Bill which would provide that the mayor may, with the permission of the elected council, enter into co-operation agreements with other cities or municipalities both in the European Union and indeed in the wider world, in order to advance diplomatic, cultural, environmental, social and economic relationships. This section provides that such co-operation agreements may also be entered into with other European Union cities or municipalities for the purposes of participating in European Union projects. Examples of such initiatives include the urban development network, the Smart Cities initiative, and the New Urban Agenda. An example I worked on in my previous life was Safer Cities for Women and Girls, which was a UN initiative. I have given the example previously of C40 cities, which is a global network of mayors of the world's leading cities united in action to confront the climate crisis. There are multiple other examples where cities are working together to try to deliver for their communities in the common challenges we face. Many of them are global and international challenges in terms of climate action, social inclusion, disability, migrant justice, arts and culture, even in areas such as public services or areas where we have seen public-public partnerships emerging. I wrote once to a Department asking about public-public partnerships and they replied with "Do you mean public-private partnerships?" I actually meant public-public partnerships, such as between cities and municipalities facing similar issues and seeking to consolidate their efforts or research to develop solutions that work, or to learn how others have solved those issues in another city. There is great scope here for cities to talk to and support each other and work together. I would like clarity around those issues, things like Safer Cities for Women and Girls, the urban development network, the Smart Cities initiative. Is it the case that the mayor will be able to initiate such processes, with the approval of the elected council, which is included as a caveat and would of course be very important?
We have discussed the role of cities in facing the challenges of the century. David Harvey is one of the geographers who has highlighted city to city conversations. I do not want to disregard the county because we are also seeing rural initiatives, including those that are in a relationship to a city, and have also looked to how that might be addressed in interesting and innovative ways. There is much to be learned about green networks surrounding towns and cities, for example. I would be grateful if the Minister of State could clarify if that is something a mayor can undertake, if he or she wants to bring Limerick into this or that partnership.
From my experience in local government, this already exists. Many local councils enter all sorts of partnerships be they commercial or environmental. We see it with a whole load of agendas, particularly within the European Union. We see all sorts of partnerships. We see locally elected members of councils and local authorities having exchange programmes and going to different parts of different parliaments. I think this really all exists. Does it need to be anywhere special for Limerick? It does not need to be any more special for Limerick, it is for everywhere. I would ask for the Minister of State's guidance but my understanding, experience and practice is that there is strong international co-operation with local authorities and functions. There are partnerships going on between local government organisations as well. One of the things we can say in local government in Ireland is that we are strong in reaching out, particularly within the European Union. I fully support everything Senator Higgins has said but let us not overthink it. I have looked at a series of amendments that are coming up and again I see these things already happening. I would be interested in the Minister of State's guidance. I do not think there is any impediment in this legislation to stop any of this happening. If that is the case, there is nothing broken and nothing to fix. I hope the Minister of State can confirm in his view and vast experience that this is the sort of appetite and relationships that we have in local government.
Amendment No. 82 proposes a new section authorising, subject to council approval, the mayor to enter into co-operation agreements with cities and municipalities in any country for the benefit of diplomatic, cultural, environmental, social and economic relationships. The amendment also proposes that co-operation of this nature can focus on participating in European Union projects.
There is already an existing provision under section 75 of the Local Government Act 2001 for a local authority to enter into twinning relationships. The same section also provides that a local authority may establish a "similar link", to twinning, with any other area outside the State, provided that such a link generates benefits including social and cultural advantages. Establishing links under this provision of the Act is a reserved function which can only be performed by the elected council. Therefore Limerick may already form a relationship that closely matches what is proposed in the first part of the amendment. We already have many of them.
The second element of the amendment proposes that the mayor may enter into an agreements between Limerick and another EU city or municipality with the goal of participating in European Union projects. In this regard, article 10 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government, which Ireland has signed and ratified, already entitles Limerick to form consortia with other local authorities in order to carry out tasks of common interest and to associate with other local authorities to protect and promote common interests. This is yet another framework for facilitating much of what the amendment proposes. Nevertheless, the European Charter of Local Self-Government makes reference to local authorities' entitlement to cooperate with one another "under such conditions as may be provided for by the law".
It is already in there. There is one thing I have been very conscious of with the legislation. I have a general rule that if it is working, do not touch it. I have tried to take the really good, positive elements of current local government and retain them within the Bill. That is why I have left unaffected the chamber and the role of the councillors. It is something I feel very strongly about. On the proposed amendment, again, it is working, it is provided for in the legislation and on that basis I am not minded to accept it.
The piece that is a little bit different is just clarifying the role of the mayor in that. Of course, as an elected councillor they can come forward with these proposals. I did not want to remove that function of the elected council. However, I do want whatever candidates there are for mayor of Limerick - it is not going to be me - to be able to go out and talk to the people of Limerick about the initiatives, projects, peers or equivalent set of cities he or she wants Limerick to be co-operating with, for example to be part of C40 or Safer Cities for Women and Girls. I do not want candidates to be told that has nothing to do with the role of the mayor. They will be proposing it in their capacity as a council member but it is the kind of thing they should be able to campaign on and be clear on. It is the kind of vision piece that affects who people choose as mayor. That is why I am looking for that to be clarified. I would be grateful if the Minister of State could add a sentence or two to clarify that it is his expectation, even though they will be employing their powers as a council member, these are the kinds of areas where a mayor can look to give leadership.
Absolutely. The mayor is a member of the chamber, it is 40 plus 1. He or she is accountable to the chamber and is in essence taking up a senior role within the chamber. He or she will be bringing forward proposals. Once again, it is hugely important in the spirit of co-operation and looking at local authorities around the world where having a directly elected mayor has worked, they have worked with co-operation. The mayor still has to have a democratic mandate, however.
Looking at the local authorities where it has not worked, there has not been co-operation. I do not want to namecheck, but two are about to reverse their decisions. This is provided for in the legislation. This is very much in a positive mould. The mayor will bring forward many proposals. Limerick is always looking to twin and to work in a collaborative manner. It should be remembered as well that where local authorities form DACs in terms of investment vehicles or whatever else, they will now report to the mayor, not the CEO. That is significant. I want the mayor to have a role that drives on policy and for the implementation of that policy to be done by the phenomenally good staff within the local authority. The mayor brings added value. It is provided for in the legislation. I want to think in a positive, collaborative manner on this.
If the mayor is ultimately the man who carries the can, where does that leave the CEO?
If I may explain, it was put to the people that certain activities, such as staffing, administration of schemes, housing and general operational matters, would remain with the CEO. The CEO will continue to be the accounting officer, very similar to a Secretary General of a Department. Everything else moves to the mayor. The mayor will be responsible for bringing the annual budget to the chamber, whereas that is currently the CEO's responsibility. I refer to a budget of €600 million. The mayor will be responsible for bringing the development plans to the chamber; currently, the CEO is responsible. All the Limerick 2030 projects will report to the mayor, whereas at present they report to the CEO. Ultimately, they report to the chamber. As regards the responsibilities that move to the mayor, the mayor is responsible to the chamber. As regards the responsibilities that remain with the CEO, he or she is answerable to the chamber. If the mayor - we dealt with this previously - delegates certain activities to the CEO, the CEO is ultimately answerable to the mayor and the mayor is still answerable to the chamber in those activities. It is structural. We have an implementation forum. There is a review mechanism within a three-year period. It is important that we get this working in a structured manner in order that it is true to what the people voted on. It will be the subject of review within the first three years. That is the structure.
To carry on there, I know this is structural, but all through the Bill the mayor can devolve some or all of his functions to the chief executive. I ask the Minister of State to hear me out. The real issue is responsibility, and the word "responsible". Ultimately, the mayor can devolve functions; they will be less effective. Not every mayor will have qualifications in accountancy, economics, engineering or whatever else. A chief executive of a local authority has multiple functions. As a general rule, I am quite supportive of the chief executives of the local authorities. We need to shift their powers, but that is another day's work. On the whole, however, good chief executives are important. The mayor will have ultimate responsibility but can devolve all of his or her functions. The mayor can decide to be the communicator in the chamber but, ultimately, he is empowered to sign off all functions. That is an important point we need to get across. The key is where the responsibility and accountability lie. That is the key around the effectiveness of a mayor and the importance, in terms of accountability, of the mayor back to the people, ultimately, who will elect him or her.
I thank the Minister of State for his reply, but it raised more questions than it provided answers. We are heading into new territory. These are as yet untested waters. If the mayor is accountable to the chamber within the local authority but the accounting officer is the chief executive officer, there is the probability, I would think, of conflict between the two offices from time to time over certain issues. There may be a particular policy position the mayor wants to drive forward and the chief executive officer, as accounting officer, may feel that it is untenable. We were talking earlier at the transport committee about multi-annual budgets and the like. A mayor may want to drive a project that has a five-year lifespan. The chief executive officer, as accounting officer, may feel that he or she cannot really commit to that because he or she cannot commit five years ahead in the context of a budget. I see areas of difficulty here. We cannot really refer to the chief executive officer as the chief executive officer any more if the buck stops with the mayor.
The director general. It is a change of title
I am not trying to throw a spanner in the works for the Minister of State, but it is really important that we empower a mayor to be accountable to his representatives in the chamber and, ultimately, to the people who elect him. I have always held the view that the chief executive officer or accounting officer is answerable only to the Minister of State's Department. They are not really answerable to their local representatives in any great way. We have seen in the past how some of them dismiss the council's views. We need to be very careful that the powers we are giving the mayor are enforceable. For me, the problem is where the mayor goes if there is conflict. If the mayor is having difficulty with an accounting officer, where does he or she go? Alternatively, if the accounting officer, whoever he or she is, is having difficulty with a mayor who has an appetite for a project that is beyond the financial capabilities of the local authority, where does the accounting officer go to try to resolve the issue? There is an area there that could be open to conflict. If it is, how do they resolve that conflict?
It is the same role. Dare I say it, we can always look for the negative. The role was designed and put to the people. There is a similar role and relationship between a Secretary General of a Department, who is the Accounting Officer, and the Minister. It is virtually identical. This is a significant shifting of powers from the CEO, who will now be called the director general, to the mayor. This reflects the normal functioning of a Department. We would expect people to work in co-operation. It should be remembered that this is a seismic change whereby the mayor now brings the €600 million budget to the floor of the chamber. The mayor brings the development plans to the chamber. All the DACs, in the context of 2030, will report directly to the mayor. Once again, there have to be practicalities, and one of the practicalities was that staff would continue, as they do in Departments, to be under the domain of the director general.
I am quite content with the legislation. It is new territory. I have studied at length the local authorities worldwide. There are ones that have worked but there is no perfect directly elected mayor situation. We have come up with something here that followed from a plebiscite. Limerick people voted for it. We set up an implementation group under the direction of Tim O'Connor, an excellent chair, and it came forward with proposals. Among those proposals was one that there should be a speaker and deputy speaker of the house rather than the mayor chairing the committee. That is not the situation in New York. The structures are tried and trusted in terms of Departments. I am of the view that this will work very well. The mayor will have his or her own special adviser and dedicated staff within the office for his or her role. Once again, this will work only if there is co-operation, and that is a human aspect. The legislation has been very much framed in a positive way and will work in a very structured fashion. Ultimately, for the first time ever, there will be a mayor with a mandate from the people, which is a very strong endorsement of the role. Anyone working within a local authority will be minded of that.
I have been on the ground with the Minister of State in Limerick. I know his commitment to the city. I also know he is anxious to get this through and see a directly elected mayor.
I want to put that on record. The Minister of State is a true-blue Limerick man. I will give him that. The issue I am talking about has not arisen. I am not trying to be negative. It is our job in this House to tease things out and see where they go.
The Minister of State mentioned the relationship between a Minister and a Secretary General. I am mindful of the time we moved to transition year in education. The then Minister stood up at a teachers' conference and said that children could do with transition year. When the Minister said it was true, it was true. The Secretary General did not expect it and neither did anyone in his Department. Once a Minister says something is going to happen, that is it.
Is the Minister of State telling me that if the mayor of Limerick says that they will do A, B or C, that will be it? Is he saying that the de facto position will be that the director general will have to find the funding to make sure what the mayor says happens? In other words, the executive authority will rest with the mayor and the accounting officer will simply have to find a way to meet the needs as laid down by the mayor.
I do not mean to put the Minister of State on the spot, particularly as I have seen him in operation and I know that he is committed to his city.
The Senator lived there for many years. He knows the city very well. I acknowledge the Senator's bona fides in the matter.
There is one key element that was not discussed. There will still be the chamber of 40 councillors who have reserve functions. The mayor will be bringing proposals to the chamber. Their role remains unaffected, but it means that the mayor can drive policy on planning and housing. The mayor can drive policy within the local authority to bring it to the chamber. Ultimately, it is a reserve function of the councillors in terms of many of the decisions that are made, and the mayor is also a member of the council. We want a mayor who is driving policy direction for the local authority in a serious way and who will be supported by the operational element within the council. We should never forget that there are excellent people working in local authorities. We have 40 excellent councillors, as it is, in Limerick. Their role remains the same. It is very much about the mayor now being able to drive that focus.
In light of the indications that there is no obstacle to co-operation agreements, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 83:
In page 29, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:
"United Nations Sustainable Development Goals
35. In performing functions under this Act or any other enactment, the Mayor shall act in a manner consistent with achievement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, in particular Goal 11 on sustainable cities and communities.".
We have already discussed this matter. Perhaps the Minister of State could take the opportunity to indicate how he intends to approach it on Report Stage, which is coming very soon. I understand it is on the schedule for next week.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that in performing any mandate under this legislation, the mayor will act in a manner that was consistent with achievement of the United Nations sustainable development goals, in particular, goal 11, which relates to sustainable cities and communities. I will not go over the lengthy materials that I have in respect of these goals. I am of the view that the sustainable development goals are more crucial than ever because we are at a moment of hope - as was the case in Paris and when the sustainable development goals were agreed - when we can see the blueprint for what a sustainable, decent, fair and beautiful future might look like for common humanity. We are at a moment when it seems that all of the best aspirations of humanity and all of the best principles of how we want our fellow humans to be treated, what we believe are common core principles and visions that we share, seem to be under attack. There are those who would erode those principles and visions. The almost high point of international multilateralism and of a vision for a common humanity embodied in the sustainable development goals is important. We need to reaffirm that at every level. The goals do not just belong to governments; they belong to everyone across the globe. Leadership should be coming at every level, including local level.
The Minister of State indicated that he intends to look at this area of sustainability in its full sense, including environmental sustainability. Perhaps the Minister of State could clarify whether we can expect that something will be forthcoming on Report Stage.
I can see why Senator Higgins would not lose any opportunity to promote the sustainable development goals. I fully commend her on doing so. She continues to highlight them at every opportunity. Ireland has signed up to the sustainable development goals. As for the local authorities, the preamble to my local authority's county development plan refers to its significance and the authority's commitment to it. I would be surprised if any county or city development plan does not include acknowledgement and recognition in its preamble that it fully subscribes to and supports.
In the generality, I fully agree with the Minister of State on Limerick. It goes for whatever local authority one is talking about. It is already done. It is catered for, but I commend Senator Higgins for, yet again, raising this important issue. It is an all-of-government approach, be it national, international, European or, more importantly, local. Ultimately, it is all about subsidiarity. It is about responsibilities and people's actions in relation to the sustainable development goals.
I commend Senator Higgins for highlighting this, but I do not see why there would be any issue. There is no issue about it.
Amendment No. 83 proposes to place a statutory obligation on the mayor to act in a manner consistent with achieving the United Nations sustainable development goals, with a particular emphasis on goal 11 on sustainable cities and communities.
It is important to note that Ireland's second National Implementation Plan for the Sustainable Development Goals 2022-2024 was developed in collaboration with all Departments and key stakeholders, and based on input from two public consultation processes. One of the strategic objectives of the plan is “to integrate the SDGs into Local Authority work to better support the localisation of the SDGs”, recognising the important role of local government in this regard. A number of actions within the plan also relate to the role for local authorities in incorporating the sustainable development goals into corporate plans, development plans and local economic and community plans. This is already being bedded in all areas at local government level, as Senator Boyhan has said.
Sustainability is at the heart of long-term planning and is one of the main ambitions underpinning Ireland's national planning framework. Since 2015, the State has been a signatory to the UN sustainable development goals. These goals are embedded in national agendas and policies to 2030. There is significant alignment between the national planning framework and the UN sustainable development goals in areas ranging from climate action to sustainability in the community. Our regional assemblies have prepared regional spatial and economic strategies that cover matters relating to the sustainable development goals. City and county development plans have been reviewed to ensure they align with both the national planning framework and regional spatial and economic strategies, which means that sustainable communities are also addressed by these plans.
Section 33 of the Bill provides for the Limerick Project Ireland 2040 delivery board, which the mayor will chair. One of the board's functions is to support the implementation in Limerick of the national planning framework, Limerick's city and county development plan and the parts of the local regional spatial and economic strategies that pertain to the Limerick-Shannon metropolitan area. As outlined, all three of these policies are committed to promoting the sustainability of communities in accordance with the sustainable development goals.
I fully agree with the Senators' objective that the goals should be given full effect in Limerick. As they are already firmly anchored in the Bill, I believe we have created structures which satisfy this ambition. As a result, I do not propose to accept the amendment. However, I have given a commitment to the House and to Senator Higgins to look at the possibilities around biodiversity and climate in the context of Report Stage. I will come back on that.
In light of that, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendments No. 84:
In page 29, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:
"United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
35. In performing functions under this Act or any other enactment, the Mayor shall act in a manner consistent with the full implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.".
Amendment No. 84 introduces a new section mandating that, "In performing functions under this Act or any other enactment, the Mayor shall act in a manner consistent with the full implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities." As the House will be aware, Ireland has ratified the UNCRPD but, as often happens when we sign up to new things at the international level, there is a significant body of work required for us to move from signing up to the convention to putting it into effect.
Very often we find we have a business-as-usual approach in areas rather than a proactive approach. When we design actions, take actions and bring forward proposals, are we actively seeing, for example, if these reflect and support the inclusion of persons with a disability? It sometimes means doing things differently. There is a lot of doing things differently that will be required at every level in Ireland for us to deliver on inclusion, participation and access to rights for persons with a disability. It requires a lot of change. It is not about small schemes at the end of things. It is about doing everything from our public spaces, to our public transport, to our public days, to our initiatives, to approaching them with a new checklist, which is whether we are bringing forward the rights of persons with a disability in how we approach this.
Again, there is an important leadership role at local level in that respect. It is at local level where most persons with a disability will be seeking to access and vindicate their rights. There is a hugely important potential. I would hope that a mayor would lead on this area, but in the absence of leading on this area, I would hope the mayor would at least ensure their own actions, functions, initiatives and so forth would be consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
I note, which is perhaps outside the scope of this Bill, that Ireland needs to move forward in ratifying the optional protocol. The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is already law and we have signed up to it. What we want is the optional protocol which will allow individuals to hold the Government, and indeed local authorities and any other public body, to account in their delivery of it. The Government signed up to it, it is theoretically there in place, but at the moment the optional protocol, whereby an individual can say the Government is not delivering what it signed up to, has not yet been ratified. We need to see that. It is a very important tool because too often it does come down to individuals challenging, insisting and asserting their rights.
This is a very important area and is part of the change in thinking we need to see at every level. Of course, it applies everywhere and not just Limerick but this is new legislation coming through now for local authorities. If people are tired about hearing about the SDGs they are going to be hearing about the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities where I believe it to be relevant in every piece of legislation that goes through these Houses. This is a place where we can begin.
Again, I support Senator Higgins. She has set out very clearly the rationale behind her amendment on the rights of persons with disabilities. We have designated disability officers in our local authorities, or we should have. There may be a gap or vacancy currently but there are designated disability officers. I make the point, and it is important we raise this in the House, that there are a lot of shortcomings. I have experienced and have had people make representations to me on accessing services locally. I do not want to talk about the generality of local authorities today because I want to keep the focus here on the Limerick mayor. Yes, it is important that Senator Higgins has raised this issue and I support her on it, but a lot of it is down to resourcing. It is a full-time office. It is not always a full designated stand-alone office in some local authorities. It is a shared function within the local authority itself. There are huge challenges.
Only today, I made representations on behalf of a couple who were in their first local authority house, and they are 82 and 84 years of age. They were years waiting on the list, and while the property they were given was a very nice cottage in a very nice seaside location in south county Dublin, it did not address their needs for their very first home. For orientation and getting into a place, it was a very small little one-bedroom unit, but it was not suitable to their needs because, and this is not to be ageist in any way, when you are in your eighties, you have disabilities and ill-health, and you are moving to a new community you have never lived in, there are many factors that need to be worked into your special needs for you so that you can be an active citizen within your own community.
I do not doubt the commitment of local authorities, elected members or mayors, cathaoirligh or subcommittees. The issue is very much about additional resources. I know this goes outside the scope of the Minister of State's remit but this is an all-of-government approach, as Senator Higgins said, and perhaps it is an issue the Minister of State can bring back to his colleagues in government. We always have to be mindful that we need the necessary resources and supports so that people can live their full life as well as they possibly can, with ability or disability. It is a very valid and appropriate point to raise and I support Senator Higgins in this regard.
As an important aside to Senator Boyhan, if we can assist that particular couple in any way in my Department, I ask the Senator to give me their details and we can follow it up for him.
People with disabilities are a subject of great importance that falls under my remit in housing. We brought out our national strategy for housing people with disabilities and I have published an implementation plan for that which is very up to date. It is something I am very committed to and have a deep personal interest in, aside from a political one.
Amendment No. 84 from Senator Higgins and the Civil Engagement Group seeks to introduce a new section to the Bill to ensure the mayor acts in a manner consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which Ireland has signed and ratified. Ireland ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2018 and, as such, is bound by the obligations to maintain the convention by a decision of the Executive. It would be both unusual and inappropriate to insert a provision requiring the mayor to have regard to a convention within the provisions of a legislative Act when the State has already ratified and agreed to the contents of that convention.
The amendment is also technically problematic as it appears be too vague to work in legal practice. The convention is a large instrument which cannot be transposed in the manner proposed by the amendment in a fashion that is legally sound. I know the import but we believe it is already covered in a national decision.
Aside from technical difficulties such as these, the amendment is unnecessary at a policy level. I see the provisions of this Bill as positive and progressive looking, and this is something I keep reiterating. The legislation brings greater local democracy and decision-making autonomy to the people of Limerick. From that perspective we do not believe the proposed amendment is necessary. It is already provided for in a national decision where we as a country have already ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2018. Therefore, although I know the import of it, I cannot accept the inclusion of this amendment.
Is Senator Higgins pressing the amendment?
I will withdraw it but reserve the right to reintroduce it or something similar on Report Stage. I thank the Minister of State for his engagement.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 35 to 37, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS
I move amendment No. 85:
In page 30, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:
“Implementation of regeneration projects
38. (1) The Mayor shall be responsible for the implementation and management of regeneration projects in the Limerick City and County Council area.
(2) The Mayor shall be required to submit an annual report that will be reviewed by members of the Local Authority before it is submitted to the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage.”.
The amendment speaks for itself. I know the Minister of State is a Limerick man who is fully committed to the regeneration of his city. I have discussed this legislation with Limerick city and county councillors and this, more than any others, was one of two or three recurring themes for many of them. This amendment has come about from discussions with them and it suggests that the mayor shall be responsible for the implementation and management of a regeneration programme and projects at Limerick City and County Council. I acknowledge that Limerick has vastly improved in recent years. There has been a huge amount of investment. Looking at the opera quarter, the cathedral or all parts of the city, there are major plans. There is a real confidence about Limerick that I have not seen for many years in the community, the council, business and enterprise, and of course it is so near Shannon and everything. That whole region is really lifting itself up and its spirits are lifting.
This amendment proposes that the mayor shall be required to submit an annual report that will be reviewed by members of the local authority before they submit it to the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. I am not going to go on at length. The Minister of State knows this area better than anyone in this Chamber.
He knows the enthusiasm for the revitalisation and regeneration of commercial activity, for enterprise and for the residential quarters of the town. He knows Limerick. He knows the significance and importance of driving this wonderful city, which it is. It was once very successful, but it has had its blips, problems, and social and economic challenges, but there is a real confidence both in public life, in politics and in the economic life of the city that looks forward to this regeneration. If nothing else, this is where the mayor is going to be most successful and where the mayor is going to be the face of success. People do not like change initially but that would change when it comes to cutting the ribbons and opening these great new developments, having more employment and investment in the area, new homes and vibrant communities, which Limerick city and county deserve.
From talking to the sitting councillors, they believe it is important that the regeneration projects are pushed forward. They see the mayor as being critical, in partnership with everybody else, because it is a stakeholder issue. I know the Government is hugely committed and I know the Minister of State's drive and commitment in that area, as someone who is elected to represent the people there. It is a very reasonable request and I do not see why he would have an issue with it. It will send a very strong message to the city, to business, to the chamber of commerce and, more importantly, to the city and county council on which his own party has a very significant representation, that he is fully behind it. It is a simple ask: to put the mayor at the head of the regeneration projects. I say that in a spirit of co-operation. The mayor would clearly not be running the whole thing, but he is the figurehead of this council. He is the ambassador for these developments and for the success of this community.
I support Senator Boyhan's amendment. As he rightly pointed out, I spent quite a lot of my life in Limerick. I owe my second-chance education to Limerick. I often remember working with the Minister of State on various projects in Limerick city down through the years. Recently, I had the pleasure of going back there and visiting St. Nessan's Community College and seeing an unbelievable regeneration programme there. That college was gone. It was finished and it no longer had a role in second level education.
Is that Thomond College?
No, not Thomond, South Hill.
Then there is the old Krups factory. The work that is going on there with Eimear Brophy, Paul Patton, and other such people, is just unbelievable. As a politician in Limerick, I know the Minister of State used to push various projects himself. He was quite a strong voice in Limerick Senior College back in the day when I was there, as were some of this colleagues. I would not like to take away from all his colleagues who work in Limerick. It strikes me that a political influence in regeneration is extremely important. I see Members of this House making cases every day to try to drive local initiatives. A mayor with executive power, where the buck stops with him or her, with the responsibility, if one likes, for regeneration, makes tremendous sense to me. I fully support what my colleague Senator Boyhan says. I also know that many members of the Minister of State's own party who are on the council in Limerick, and councillors from various other parties and none – including the Independent people who have a very strong voice down there - would want their mayor to be taking a leading role. There is a lot of work still to be done in Limerick, but let us give it to those who have done it.
I would like to think that the mayor would be working hand in hand with the education and training board down there as well, and with the Technological University of the Shannon and the University of Limerick. The one thing I can say from my time in Limerick is that from an educational point of view, it was always a leader in the field. I see a tremendous opportunity here for the first directly elected mayor in the country to make his or her mark, going forward, setting the bar for future directly elected mayors around the country. It would be a great opportunity for Limerick to lead out once again, because it has led on many things in its time.
I wish to very briefly say that I support this amendment. It is a very important area. It is exactly the kind of area in which we would like to see mayoral leadership. It is the kind of thing that people can run on, namely, is a vision for regeneration. That is why it is unfortunate that one of the many powers which, under the Schedule, do not lie with the mayor but, rather, sit with the director general, the CEO, is that relating to the Urban Regeneration and Housing Act 2015. The purpose of Government amendment No. 121 is to include regeneration in the Schedule in order that it will sit with the director general instead of with the mayor. Senator Gavan commented on this previously. It is just another example of the kind of instance where a figurehead with vision could come through and drive regeneration. I am concerned that many of the powers and responsibilities relating to regeneration seem to sit with the director general and that there might not be scope for the kind of vision and action outlined by Senator Boyhan. I support his amendment.
The Minister of State is very welcome. I would like to speak briefly on this amendment. As the Minister of State is aware, I raised this matter last week. In fairness, he acknowledged the fact that while some of the regeneration has been very good, some of it has not been. He also acknowledged that we need to give the opportunity for a directly elected mayor to be able to tackle this. I think that is what the people of Limerick would want. As Senator Higgins and others have said, we do not see those powers in the Bill right now.
I am genuinely a little surprised because I would have thought the Minister of State would agree with us on this one. It is a really good opportunity to empower the newly elected mayor with the oversight of regeneration, give it a new impetus, and ensure there is better democratic oversight. It does not make any sense to me to keep these powers retained for the director general. It is just not good practice but also shows a lack of ambition in regard to the Bill.
I thank the Senators very much for their contributions. I will speak to amendment No. 85 in the names of Senators Boyhan and Keogan. This amendment proposes to insert a new section into the Bill which would give the mayor responsibility for the administration and implementation of Limerick regeneration projects. It also proposes that an annual report would be submitted to the elected members of Limerick City and County Council for their review, after which it would be furnished to the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage.
First, I strongly agree with the spirit of the amendment. The mayor will have an important role in regeneration measures in Limerick. These projects aim to develop and improve the region through creating safe and sustainable communities, attracting new inward investment, encouraging new local businesses, and providing high quality and flexible accommodation spaces. Implementation of current and future regeneration frameworks is crucial to the ambitious plan to transform the city and local areas.
The Limerick regeneration framework implementation plan is the programme of work 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 the community and other bodies. It is currently chaired by the chief executive and under the new structures it will be chaired by the mayor. That will put the mayor front and centre in terms of driving the programme.
Regeneration projects such as the Limerick regeneration framework implementation plan do not have a separate statutory basis. The Bill does however, provide for the mayor to have an important role in the oversight and development of regeneration generally in Limerick. This is reflected in section 32 which provides for the mayor to establish a Limerick mayoral advisory and implementation committee. In response to Senator Craughwell, the mayor will have a statutory right to bring any public body or whoever else onto his implementation group, and I would expect education partners to be automatically included.
As I mentioned earlier, a 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, and, obviously, city areas.
In addition to this committee, section 33 provides for the mayor to also chair the Limerick Project Ireland 2040 delivery board, which will progress the implementation of the national planning framework and the national development plan in the region. Key duties of the delivery board will include engagement and collaboration 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". Also within section 33, the mayor would be responsible for the implementation of the Limerick city and county development plan, which will obviously have regeneration as a key element of it.
Senator Gavan and I both live in Limerick and Senator Craughwell was there for many years. We know the importance of the regeneration of the area. There are fantastic communities living in all areas of the city. It is something we all fully support. While I appreciate the sentiment behind the Senator's amendments, I cannot accept them as the mayor's central role in respect of regeneration is already reflected in the Bill. Once again, I am looking at it with positivity. The mayor will be front and centre in driving regeneration in Limerick city and county.
Before I address the Minister of State's response, I will acknowledge Senator Paul Gavan, because I did not see him. He lives there and I fully respect his knowledge and experience of the city. He has certainly shared that with us over his many years here in the Seanad. He has shared challenges and concerns about regeneration projects but he has also shared with us the vibrancy of Limerick city and county. I just want to acknowledge that the Senator is here and that he is a very active and strong ambassador for Limerick city and county.
I do not accept the Minister of State's response. There is too much ambiguity in politics. We should remember what we are doing here today. We are looking at primary legislation on a mayor for Limerick. We are making amendments to a Government Bill. This is our opportunity. We are not talking about regulations but about primary legislation. I will tell the Minister of State here and now that, after I speak on this amendment, I am going to call a vote on it. I will tell him why. The Minister of State is on record as having committed-----
(Interruptions).
I will wait until he has finished consulting with his officials. I appreciate that he is an ever-moving and ever-thinking Minister of State. He may be taking the opportunity to further reflect on what he has said. Perhaps he will change his mind. I will continue to talk about the rationale behind my own opinion.
We are dealing with primary legislation. Earlier on, someone spoke about mayoral leadership, following and being an ambassador for the county and the city. The Minister of State represents this wonderful city. He has lived there and so has experienced the difficulties and challenges. He believes in this new role that will shape the future and in the ambition of his city and county. He has said all of that. He is also on record as having said that the mayor will be critical to the rejuvenation and regeneration of the city, providing new opportunities for the people and making it a better place to live and work. The Minister of State has said that, not me. He has said he agrees with the spirit of the amendment. The spirit has moved in him and he has said that this is a good and positive amendment and yet he still somehow has reservations about it. I do not want any ambiguity in what we are about as regards this mayor. I have concerns. As I told the Minister of State earlier, I have spoken extensively with councillors for Limerick city and council and this is one of two or three key issues that they raised. The Minister of State will note I have proposed only three amendments to the legislation before the House and that they all deal with key issues raised with me by city and county councillors in Limerick. That is really important.
We know that the mayor cannot and should not go against the national planning framework and that there are Government policies to shape the future economy of our country. We have a national development plan, a national planning framework and various Government circulars and guidelines to shape the future. We are going to have a new and strengthened Planning and Development Bill, very extensive legislation that represents the biggest ever reform of planning and development in this country. There will be loads of opportunities to safeguard proper and sustainable planning and development for the future of Limerick city and county in all of that. However, this is the Minister of State's opportunity. He is an elected representative in this area and has a lot of valued knowledge and experience. It is important that people reading the media in Limerick over the coming days will be in no doubt as to his absolute commitment.
I do not doubt his commitment but I am conscious that we have an opportunity here to develop tight narratives. Everything in politics is about communication and how we can communicate complex things in very simple messages. What I am asking for today is very simple. I have asked before but I will say again that I propose that "The Mayor shall be responsible for the implementation and management of regeneration projects in the Limerick City and County Council area", an area the Minister of State has talked passionately about for years. We ask that the mayor be responsible for that. Second, we propose that the new mayor elected "shall be required to submit an annual report that will be reviewed by members of the Local Authority before it is submitted to the Department". We are just asking for a report, not for the mayor to do a solo run.
I am also conscious of issues around the Land Development Agency. We will come to that later so I will not dwell on it too much now other than to again say that local authorities have to offer any lands available to the Land Development Agency for development under other legislation. I am very supportive of the Land Development Agency. Its work is not happening fast enough. Houses are not being built fast enough. Again, the mayor cannot do a runner and decide he is not going to co-operate with the Land Development Agency. He certainly cannot veto or block the disposal of lands because that power has been taken away from local authorities. They have first option and that is an issue. As I said, the mayor cannot deviate from Government policy in this area. At the end of the day, all of these regeneration projects are going to require support and funding from central government and the support of elected representatives and people in business within the city. It is really important that we agree to what is a very simple ask. I do not say this with disrespect because the Minister of State is very busy but he is coming in with pieces of paper and reading his scripts and advisory notes. I understand that he has to do that because he has a very extensive portfolio. However, it is also important that we listen to this very simple ask.
I do not know what Senator Cummins is shaking his head about. I am on the floor and speaking. I am entitled to speak without interruption or any sort of snide remark. I will just make that point.
We will hear Senator Boyhan without interruption. The Chair is not responsible for the mannerisms of other people.
If someone shakes their head at me again, I will stand for another 20 minutes and rehash this. I am making that point now.
I am not aware of anyone shaking their head.
If I get a sense that nobody in this Chamber understands what I am saying, I will spend 30 minutes repeating myself.
The Senator is, of course, entitled to do that.
I know I am. I am just telling the Acting Chairperson that. I will go back over it all again. I am asking the Minister of State to support this amendment. As I said, he is a TD and is responsible. He has form. He is on record as saying that he supports the principles of this amendment. That is what he has said. This is his hour, his moment and his time. He has the opportunity to support it. Either he supports these two asks or he does not. It is as simple as that. People are looking in here. They will be shaking their heads and asking whether this fella is not making sense. Am I not making sense? The ask is simple and it is something the Minister of State's city and county councillors want. They want a role for their elected mayor, the principle of which I support, at the very front of the implementation of regeneration projects. I ask the Minister of State to please reflect on that and to indicate his support for it here today. I do not intend to defer this matter today. I am not going to. We had other issues regarding the policing committee, which is another matter, and we are guillotined. I do not want this particular issue to fall to any guillotine. I do not want that to happen.
There is no guillotine here.
That is grand.
The Senator should correct the record on that point. There is no guillotine here.
I will correct the record. I am saying that I have concerns about a potential guillotine but the Minister of State has now informed us there will be none. That is okay. I am exercising my prerogative in respect of this primary legislative process today. I ask the Minister of State to agree to this amendment. If he does not, I have to respect that decision. We will continue to work in the spirit of co-operation. I will call a vote. I rest my case.
There are other colleagues who wish to speak but, before I call on them, I will welcome Mr. Alex Cole-Hamilton, Member of the Scottish Parliament and leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, who is accompanied by his wife, Gillian. They are very welcome to Seanad Éireann as guests of Senator John McGahon. I hope they enjoy their visit to Leinster House today. Senator McGahon is well known for his hospitality and I have no doubt that will continue into the early hours of tomorrow morning.
I know the Minister of State as a man of his word. The problem is not him; the problem is those who come after him. As he knows, we are all in transient positions here. We come, we go. Putting what we are requesting here on a statutory footing in the legislation leaves no ambiguity and no room for anybody to say that is not what was meant or we have the power to shift that or we can change this, that or the other. By putting it into the legislation we do the city a favour. We make the mayor of Limerick a statutory position in all aspects. I am not going to spend forever speaking on this. I will leave it at that and trust that the Minister of State will accept this amendment. We can solidify it on Report Stage without a vote today, if possible.
I want to come back in because this is a good amendment. I have to agree entirely with Senator Boyhan that talking about the spirit of the amendment really means nothing at the end of the day unless the amendment is accepted. Talking about the role that the new mayor will have in terms of chairing is all well and good but, as has been pointed out, we are here to discuss the legislation today. What I find really concerning is that right now in the House, Deputy O'Donnell, as Minister of State and as a Limerick man, is saying that he objects to this amendment which simply states that the mayor should be responsible for the implementation and management of regeneration projects in the Limerick City and County Council area. That is an incredibly negative message to send just four months ahead of the election. The Minister of State is saying that he rejects this provision but I cannot see any reason for objecting to it if one believes in the spirit of what it is saying. I ask him to give us the legal rationale for not accepting this amendment because he would have to acknowledge that the people of Limerick want the mayor to have these powers in relation to regeneration. They want to see the mayor have that responsibility and be able to use those powers effectively. I am genuinely taken aback that the Minister of State will not accept this amendment. It is not Sinn Féin's amendment but is one that we very much support. It should command the support of everybody in this House. It will not reflect well on the Minister of State if he rejects this amendment. As someone from Limerick, he is looking to curtail the powers of the newly-elected mayor. Hopefully, he will think on this and come back in a more positive frame of mind.
Anyone who knows me knows that implementation and substance are hugely important to me. I note the genuineness of the amendments that have been put forward. I am trying to work in real time. I want to listen to the Members here. If I am looking through legislation it is because I am actively trying to process what Members are saying. Anyone who knows me knows that is my approach. I have accepted some amendments but there must always be a logic. I put forward this legislation in a very positive frame. The current situation with regard to the regeneration project in Limerick is that there is a Limerick regeneration framework implementation plan. There is a local strategic advisory group that oversees the implementation of that plan. That plan, in the normal way, would be brought to the Chamber and the members. It involves representatives from the community and other bodies. Senator Gavan and I know many of these people. I am a long time representing Limerick and I understand the difficulties for people living in regeneration areas.
Let us look at the legislation as currently constructed and, in particular, at section 32. We are dealing with legislation and I ask Members to go to section 32 of the Bill. That section deals with the advisory and implementation committee. This is a completely new committee over which the mayor has statutory powers. Government policy is very much around regeneration. Section 33 deals with the functions of the delivery board. We must remember that the statutory advisory monitoring group overseeing the implementation plan will be chaired by the mayor. It is currently chaired by the CEO. Furthermore, the implementation group is chaired by the mayor and the Project 2040 delivery board is also chaired by the mayor. In terms of the role of the delivery board Section 33 (4) makes specific reference to the Limerick City and County Development Plan, which will include the regeneration. It also makes reference to the provision of infrastructure, including infrastructure related to climate change mitigation, large-scale housing and amenities. Large-scale housing and amenities are very much a part of regeneration. The same section makes reference to the "arrangement, co-ordination and provision of social and economic regeneration measures including the development and improvement of land and infrastructure". In terms of the regeneration project, the mayor, rather than the CEO, will chair the statutory advisory and monitoring group that oversees the implementation of the plan. That is a transfer of powers and I would expect it will make the mayor front and centre.
The operational aspects of regeneration are a function of the executive and one has to trust one's executive. The mayor cannot do everything from the cradle to the grave within the local authority. He or she has to drive strategy. As Senator Gavan will attest, there are incredible people working in Limerick City and County Council. They are highly committed. What I want to do is work with what is there but put the mayor in the driving seat on those measures. As it stands the mayor will now become the chair of the strategic monitoring group overseeing the implementation of the regeneration plan. That is copper-fastened by the fact that the mayor will also chair the Project 2040 delivery board. That is something that I put into the legislation to ensure that the mayor will drive infrastructure development. Obviously that will copper fasten the regeneration project.
What the Senators are looking for with their amendment is already catered for within the legislation. The structures are already there and the mayor will take charge of them. I am committed to that and believe that what the Senators are seeking is already provided for in the Bill. It is as much about the processes and procedures that are in place. Legislation is hugely important and I would never say otherwise but the implementation on the ground is also hugely important. For Senator Gavan and myself, who have been involved in Limerick for many years, implementation is key. The mayor will be driving this and I expect he or she will bring responsibility for this area back to the Chamber. We will have something that is very focused because the mayor will take over this role, as provided for in the legislation already. My role as a Minister of State is to ensure that the legislation caters for that and it does.
The Minister of State used the word "focused". This amendment contains a simple request. The Minister of State says that he agrees with the spirit of the amendment and is on record on local media, including local radio, speaking in favour of the mayor driving regeneration projects. I do not doubt his commitment to that and I do not think he wants to change his position on that. Why would he? His simple message is that it is all great and is already catered for but if that is the case, why oppose the amendment? What the Minister of State is doing today is opposing this amendment. Let is be clear about what he is opposing. He is opposing making the mayor responsible for the implementation and management of regeneration projects in the Limerick City and County Council area. That is what the amendment seeks and the Minister of State is opposing it. He does not feel it is needed. I believe it is needed, as do many city and county councillors, many members of the Chamber of Commerce, many business people and many of those involved in third-level education in Limerick. Experts in planning and local government who have looked at this have some reservations about it.
As I said earlier, I have tabled three amendments. Two relate to joint policing, an issue we will deal with shortly, and this one relates to regeneration.
This proposal is not unreasonable. I am surprised the Minister of State is not accepting it. I do not understand that. The narrative is clear, which I set out to ensure was the case. I did not come in here with 20, 30 or 40 amendments. Having consulted with the people of Limerick, I chose to focus on two issues. The Minister of State has had his say on this proposal and we have had a relatively robust and good exchange on it. I do not accept his view and I will press the amendment.
Again, it is about substance for me. I will give a commitment to look at the proposal. Senator Boyhan will make his own decision on how to proceed. My role, as a Minister of State and as a TD representing Limerick city, is to make sure this legislation works. What I put forward to the Senator is based on what I believe the situation to be. However, I give a commitment to look at his proposal. If, having gone through it further, I believe there is a need for further provision, I will bring something forward on Report Stage. I am giving a commitment to look at it, which is fair. We can agree to differ. We are looking to get to the same end but I just have a view that this is covered in the legislation. I note the Senator's bona fides and I commit to looking further at the issue.
Is Senator Boyhan pressing the amendment?
I wish to respond. I thank the Minister of State for his response. It is reasonable and fair. I deal in things that are reasonable and fair. I accept his bona fides. He is the Minister of State with responsibility for this. As someone who lives in Limerick, he is a major stakeholder in it. That is more important and it convinces me that he wants this to work. In the sprit of co-operation, I am happy to work and engage with the Minister of between now and Report Stage. My proposal is reasonable and fair and it can be accommodated. It is in line with everything he has stood for and everything he has said. I am happy we have had this exchange and that he has committed to look at the proposal.
I have committed to look at it, but I am of the view, at this moment, that what the Senator is proposing is catered for in the Bill.
I hope the Minister of State is not going to unravel what he said and go back on his commitment.
I accept that he has committed to look at my proposal. I am committed to continuing to pursue it. Let us talk in the next few days. I thank the Minister of State for his robust engagement. Having regard to what he said, I will not press the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 86 and 87 are related and shall be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 86:
In page 30, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:
"Role of Mayor on safety partnerships
38. The Mayor shall be the chairperson of their local safety partnership."
It is a coincidence that my three amendments are together in a row. We will move on. I hope we will make progress on this amendment, which relates to the role of the mayor in the local safety partnership. We have had some discussion about this already. It is an important amendment.
As the Minister of State knows, we had extensive debate in the House on the Policing, Security and Community Safety Bill 2023. I engaged extensively with councillors in Limerick and all over the country on the issue addressed in this amendment, which is of real concern. I am suggesting that council cathaoirligh throughout the country, and, in this case, the mayor of Limerick, would be central to and would chair the local partnership. There has been a lot of heated discussion about this and I do not want to rehash those arguments from the debate on the Policing, Security and Community Safety Bill. The Minister of State is aware of them. This amendment proposes that the mayor shall be the chairperson of the local safety partnership.
The Policing, Security and Community Safety Act was signed into law the President. The Minister for Justice or the Government will decide on commencing sections of that legislation. The Minister is committed to bringing in regulations. We are dealing now with primary legislation to provide for the first directly elected mayor in the country. It is important that this provision be embedded in the primary legislation rather than being dealt with in regulation. I have past experience of other legislation dealing with local government, when the then Minister came in and said certain provisions had to be done by regulation. The numbers were different in the previous Seanad and, suddenly, the Minister took a briefing and came back to say he would embed the proposal in question into the primary legislation.
My objective today is to have it inserted in this Bill that the mayor shall be the chairperson of the new local safety partnership in whatever form it comes about. Notwithstanding that the Policing, Security and Community Safety Act passed all Stages, there was a lot of division and tension around it. I will not go into too much more detail. I would like to hear the Minister of State's response before I comment further with a few other key points. I had an email yesterday pointing to the process in other places. I know Limerick is not New York but the mayor in that city has full powers to appoint the city police commission. It is the same in cities in Australia, Barcelona, Malaga and many other jurisdictions across the European Union. The mayor is critically important to policing. We need strong, safe and well policed communities. We know the importance of the role of municipal and local authorities and their elected members in terms of co-operation with policing. We know the success of the joint policing committees. There have been some concerns in that regard, with some Oireachtas Members who are members of those committees being unable to give them the time needed due to the pressure of their own work. Many of our city and county councillors feel this is really important work.
I hope there will not be any difficulty with this proposal and that the Minister of State will support the mayor of Limerick being the chairperson of the local safety partnership. I do not want to tie his hands beyond Limerick because a wider provision is not fully within his remit and brief, but the role of the mayor of Limerick is within that remit. We want to send a strong message. The Minister of State is committed to this legislation and to ensuring there will be an election for mayor. We spoke earlier about strong key measures on economics, housing and regeneration. This is another key issue. It is one of only two issues I will be speaking about in the entire Bill. My amendments are about ensuring we have safe, well-managed and secure communities where citizens can feel free to go about their business and to live and work in a safe place.
The Minister of State knows the challenges around policing in Limerick, as do I. They are not different from the challenges in policing in any other part of the country, whether at city or county level. I do not mean to single out Limerick over and above anywhere else but we are talking about Limerick and the need to make the role of mayor important and relevant. The Minister of State will know from his own feedback and research, and a substantial amount of work has been done on this, that citizens really value feeling safe in walking, moving about and working in their communities. Leadership is important in that regard. This is a front-of-house issue and it is a really important role for the mayor. I will come back in after the Minister of State has responded.
I welcome to the Gallery the visitors from the Men's Shed in Kells, County Meath, as well as the women's group from Claudy. They are very welcome to the Seanad.
I second Senator Boyhan's amendment. The Minister of State and I both remember the bad times in Limerick. It is now one of the best cities in the country. A huge amount of work was carried out jointly by the Garda, local and national politicians and the education and training board, formerly the vocational education committee. It is now a model city in so many ways. I love the place and I love to visit it.
As my colleague said, there was a lot of animosity in our discussions in this House when we were dealing with what was then the Policing, Security and Community Safety Bill. Indeed, there was animosity within the Government parties. They were not necessarily too happy with one another as that legislation passed through the Houses. The mayor of Limerick, being directly elected, will be a unique post in Ireland. As such, that person should have a position that reflects the importance of the role. The Minister of State is in a position, not just as a Limerick man but as a national politician and Minister of State, to lay down the foundations for what the role of future mayors will look like. I have no doubt that Waterford, Galway and Dublin will be looking for directly elected mayors in the not too distant future because of the success of the work done locally in Limerick when the plebiscite is held. We all think of Donogh O'Malley when we think of education. It would be tremendous for another Limerick man to do something similar in regard to directly elected mayors.
The Minister of State has a chance to create a persona and profile for a mayor, which will have to be followed in every other city as various mayors are elected. I ask him to take the amendment on board. It is extremely important. As my colleague said, it underpins the safety of citizens as the responsibility of the number one citizen in the city and county of Limerick - the mayor. I ask the Minister of State to take that on board.
Amendments Nos. 86 and 87, which relate to local community safety partnerships, have been grouped together for discussion in the names of Senators Boyhan and Keogan and are supported by Senator Craughwell. These amendments seek to create a role for the mayor as chair of his or her local safety partnership through inserting an additional section in the Bill in amendment No. 86, and by amending the Policing, Community and Safety Act 2024 to that effect in amendment No. 87.
The Policing, Security and Community Safety Act 2024 sets out the statutory framework to bring together, oversee and drive the delivery of a new whole-of-government community safety approach, including the establishment of local community safety partnerships. This new structure will bring service providers and the community together at local authority level, replacing the existing joint policing committees, to serve as a forum for discussion and decisions on local matters. Membership will include local representatives, service providers and a range of community representatives who will work collaboratively. This will feed through other structures into a national strategy to guide the work of other bodies, including existing local community development committees.
In relation to the appointment of the mayor as chair of the safety partnership, this is a matter that may be subject to secondary legislation by the Minister for Justice, who has already outlined that there will be follow-on regulations to the Act. During the course of the Seanad debates, the Minister for Justice introduced an amendment to specify that provision may not be made to preclude the election of members of local authorities as chairperson or vice chairperson under section 114. In the normal way, the mayor will have the opportunity to put himself or herself forward for the selection process for the role and be elected with all other eligible candidates.
I am on record as being in favour, and I have said it in all debates on this issue, of a role for the mayor in the new local community safety partnerships. However, this falls into the domain of the Minister for Justice. It does not fall within this legislation, but it is something on which I have held discussions with the Minister and the Department and that I am actively pursuing. A body of work has been done whereby nothing precludes a councillor, and the mayor will be an elected member, from being both a member and being put forward for selection as chair of the new local community safety partnership. However, I am on record as saying that I would like to see the mayor taking up that chair's role. It is something I am actively working on, but the legislation we are currently debating is not the vehicle for that. It is a subject on which I am having discussions with both the Minister for Justice and the Department.
The Minister of State is on record as saying that. As I said, the only two items I discussed relate to the previous amendment that he will now look at, which I thank him for, and the current amendment. The Minister of State is also on record in that regard. He is the Minister driving today's legislation. He has yet again confirmed his commitment to it. I thank him because that makes absolute sense, but this is his time, hour and moment to do something about it. We are dealing with primary legislation and not regulations. Nowhere are we precluded from embedding the amendment into the legislation. We are not precluded from putting it in. I am glad the Minister of State supports it. He has indicated his support yet again, which is even better because we do not have to push the argument with him too much.
It is for technical reasons-----
The Minister of State cannot accept the amendment for technical reasons.
I cannot accept it because it is not the vehicle for what the Senator wants.
That is the Minister of State's view. I have a different view. I have had other advice on this matter. I am advised that nowhere are we precluded from putting the amendment into this primary legislation, which is about Limerick. I will not have an argument with the Minister of State as I respect him. He has a view. I have a different view. I will park it at that.
I have made my views known. The amendment is not the vehicle for this. I am having further discussions with the Minister for Justice and her Department on the issue. On the basis that it is not the correct vehicle, I cannot accept the amendment.
To be clear, I have been advised that it is open to us. We are parliamentarians. We are dealing with primary legislation. We can be explicit. The Minister of State may be under instructions not to accept the amendment. That is his call, which I respect. It is important. Again, I reflect that Limerick city councillors share my view. From talking to city and county councillors, in the context of the role they have played and the very robust engagement they have had with some Senators regarding policing generally, I know they have strong views on the issue. They are meeting this week in Arklow. I want to be able to tell them that we had an opportunity in the House, that we pushed it, and that the Minister of State has a view that the amendment is not the vehicle to do this. I have sought an opinion and view that states it is possible. It might not be ideal from the Minister of State's point of view but it is possible. I will push this to a vote.
Before I call the vote, I welcome Professor Eugene Wall, who is here with his wife Jennifer, his son Dmitri, Hannah and Emily. He is the president of Mary Immaculate College in Limerick, better known as Mary I. He is very welcome. I thank him for all the great work he is doing.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 13; Níl, 28.
Tá
- Boyhan, Victor.
- Clonan, Tom.
- Craughwell, Gerard P.
- Flynn, Eileen.
- Gavan, Paul.
- Higgins, Alice-Mary.
- Hoey, Annie.
- Keogan, Sharon.
- McDowell, Michael.
- Moynihan, Rebecca.
- Sherlock, Marie.
- Wall, Mark.
- Warfield, Fintan.
Níl
- Ahearn, Garret.
- Ardagh, Catherine.
- Burke, Paddy.
- Byrne, Malcolm.
- Byrne, Maria.
- Carrigy, Micheál.
- Cassells, Shane.
- Chambers, Lisa.
- Conway, Martin.
- Crowe, Ollie.
- Cummins, John.
- Daly, Mark.
- Daly, Paul.
- Doherty, Regina.
- Dolan, Aisling.
- Fitzpatrick, Mary.
- Gallagher, Robbie.
- Garvey, Róisín.
- Horkan, Gerry.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Lombard, Tim.
- Martin, Vincent P.
- Murphy, Eugene.
- O'Loughlin, Fiona.
- O'Reilly, Joe.
- O'Sullivan, Ned.
- Seery Kearney, Mary.
- Ward, Barry.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Victor Boyhan and Rebecca Moynihan; Níl, Senators Robbie Gallagher and Joe O'Reilly..
Amendment declared lost.
The result is different from that appearing on Senators' screens as Senator Flynn inadvertently omitted to vote. We will rectify that.
Section 38 agreed to.
Sections 39 to 44, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 87:
In page 64, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:
“Amendment of Policing, Community and Safety Act 2024
45. The Policing, Community and Safety Act 2024 is amended in section 114 by the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph (c):
“(d) the mayor shall be the chairperson of their local safety partnership.”.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Sections 45 to 64, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 65
Government amendment No. 88:
In page 77, line 6, to delete “is amended” and substitute “is amended, in section 10”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 89:
In page 77, to delete lines 7 to 11.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 90:
In page 77, line 12, to delete “(i) in subsection (3)” and substitute the following:
“(a) in subsection (3)”
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 91:
In page 77, line 16, to delete “(ii) in subsection (5)” and substitute the following:
“(b) in subsection (5)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 92 is ruled out of order as it is not relevant to the subject matter of the Bill.
Amendment No. 92 not moved.
Section 65, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS
Government amendment No. 93:
In page 77, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:
“Amendment of section 10 of Housing Finance Agency Act 1981
66. Section 10 of the Housing Finance Agency Act 1981 is amended—
(a) in subsection (1), by the substitution of “consent of the Minister, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform” for “consent of the Minister and the Minister for Finance”, and
(b) in subsection (3), by the substitution of “€12,000,000,000” for “€10,000,000,000”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 94:
In page 77, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:
“Amendment of section 42B of National Treasury Management Agency (Amendment) Act 2014
67. Section 42B of the National Treasury Management Agency (Amendment) Act 2014 is amended—
(a) in subsection (1)—
(i) by the substitution of “the Land Development Agency Act 2021, and with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform,” for “the Land Development Agency Act 2021,”,
(ii) in paragraph (c), by the substitution of “under paragraph (a),” for “under paragraph (a), or”,
(iii) in paragraph (d), by the substitution of “Land Development Agency Act 2021, or” for “Land Development Agency Act 2021.”, and
(iv) by the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph (d):
“(e) pay money to the Land Development Agency or any subsidiary DAC from the proceeds of the disposal of a directed investment for the purposes of discharging the liability of the Minister in respect of the shares allotted and issued to the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage and the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform under section 25 of the Land Development Agency Act 2021.”,
and
(b) by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (3):
“(3A) The total amount paid under subsection (1)(e) shall not at any time exceed €1,250,000,000.”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 66
Government amendment No. 95:
In page 77, to delete lines 24 to 37, and in page 78, to delete lines 1 and 2 and substitute the following:
“(b) in section 160(1)—
(i) in paragraph (b), by the substitution of “shall consult with the Public Appointments Service” for “shall consult with the Commission for Public Service Appointments”, and
(ii) by the insertion of the following paragraphs after paragraph (b):
“(ba) Where a Minister has, prior to the commencement of section 66 of the Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2024, declared qualifications under this section, such a declaration shall not be affected by reason only that he or she did not, prior to the making of that declaration, consult with the Commission for Public Service Appointments.
(bb) Paragraph (ba) shall not apply to proceedings challenging a declaration under this section that were initiated prior to the commencement of section 66 of the Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2024.”,”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 66, as amended, agreed to.
SCHEDULE 1
Amendment No. 110 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 109. Amendments Nos. 96 to 136, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 96:
In page 79, to delete lines 7 to 17 and substitute the following:
“
|
No. 37 of 2001 |
Local Government Act 2001 |
Sections 11(5)(b), 11(8), 31(4)(a), 31(5), 31(7), 31(9), 31(11), 33, 34(2)(e), 36, 37, 38, 104(7)(a), 133(6)(a), 134(4)(b), 140(8), 141(1)(b), 141(4), 142(2)(a), 142(5)(f), 143(1), 147, 148, 158(3), 174(8), 178(2)(b), 178(5), 180(3)(a), 189(9), 190(9), 216(2)(a), 219(1) and 220(1); |
".
I will speak to amendments Nos. 96 to 105, inclusive, first.
Please then continue on and speak to amendments Nos. 106 to 136, inclusive.
These are amendments to the existing tables in Schedule 1, which list the functions of the príomh chomhairleoir and the director general.
Amendment No. 96 deletes section 74(1)(b) as a function of the príomh chomhairleoir. Section 74 provides that a local authority may confer a civic honour, such as admission to honorary freedom of its area, on distinguished persons. This is a reserved function and ultimately a matter for the full council. This came up in the Dáil on Report Stage. Following review, and agreement with Members during Dáil Report Stage, I am removing section 74(1)(b) as a function of príomh chomhairleoir and vesting this function in the mayor. This amendment will allow the mayor to take on the majority of functions of the cathaoirleach, outside the chamber, including civic functions such as proposing a person for a civic honour. That was always the intention of the Bill and we are just amending that.
Amendments No. 97 to 125, inclusive, relate to Schedule 1, Part 2 of the Bill and include both Government and Opposition amendments. I propose to first address the Government amendments first.
Government amendments Nos. 97, 102, 108, 122 and 126 deal with local authority functions in relation to finance. These functions include actions connected with rates, waiving all or a portion of charges, the collection of moneys and requirements for prompt payment of account. These amendments ensure that these remain with the DG as part of the accounting officer role.
Government amendments Nos. 101 and 111 assign duties relating to the protection of wildlife and the control of some activities that may adversely affect wildlife.
Government amendments Nos. 127 to 129, inclusive, 130, 132, 134 and 135 are regulations which aim to protect wildlife habitats and protect threatened species.
Government amendment No. 99 deals with the Local Government (Sanitary Services) Act 1964. This Act gives local authorities powers to safeguard life by carrying out or causing to have carried out works on dangerous places, such as deep water-filled quarries. It also provides effective procedures for dealing with dangerous buildings.
Government amendment No. 103 deals with the Derelict Sites Act 1990. This imposes a duty upon the local authority to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the land in their functional area does not become or remain neglected or unsightly.
Government amendment No. 121 deals with the Urban Regeneration and Housing Act 2015 and the local authority’s functions for dealing with vacant sites in its area. These include establishing and maintaining a register of vacant sites, establishing the market value of a site, appointing authorised persons to assist, applying and administering a vacant site levy and prosecuting offences.
Government amendment No. 109 allows for an additional provision, section 101, to be included along with those already specified under the Planning and Development Act 2000. Part V of the Act contains housing supply provisions, and a number of sections from this Part are already in the Schedule. This amendment ensures consistency across the performance of functions by relevant planning authorities and housing authorities. By way of note, the preparation of the housing strategy under section 194 of the Act is a matter for the mayor. That is hugely important.
I refer to protected disclosures. Government amendments Nos. 120 and 131 relate to functions associated with the framework of statutory protections for whistleblowers in Ireland set out in the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 and associated regulations.
Government amendment No. 115 deals with the Water Services Act 2007 because certain water functions under that Act do not transfer to Irish Water and remain with local authorities. These functions relate to storm water sewers, the rural water sector and domestic wastewater treatment systems.
Government amendment No. 133 and part of amendment No. 128 relate to regulations for housing loans. These provide for loan finance by local authorities to eligible first-time buyers for the acquisition of new or existing houses and for the construction of houses.
Lastly, Government amendment No. 124 is a technical amendment and simply corrects the order in which legislative codes currently appear in Schedule 1, Part 2 for consistency.
Does the Minister of State wish to address amendments Nos. 126 to 136, inclusive, as well? It is all one grouping for debate. He addressed amendments Nos. 96 to 125, inclusive, and the grouping is amendments Nos. 96 to 136, inclusive. If he covered up to amendment No. 136, that is fine, but he should just be happy that he has done so.
I covered amendment No. 135.
I note the Minister of State said he was speaking to one group first.
I have covered up as far as amendment No. 135.
Perhaps the Minister of State can address amendment No. 136 then, if there is anything to be said on it. It may have been covered.
It was probably the way I read it. For the sake of clarity, under the accounting officer functions, Government amendments Nos. 97, 102, 108, 122, 126 and 136 deal with local authority functions in relation to finance. These functions include actions connected with rates, waiving all or a portion of charges, the collection of moneys and requirements for prompt payment of account. These amendments ensure that these remain with the director general as part of the accounting officer role.
I apologise.
Not at all. That is great. No Senators are contributing.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 97:
In page 79, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following:
“
|
No. 23 of 1941 |
Local Government Act 1941 |
Sections 60, 61 and 62 |
”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 98:
In page 79, to delete lines 43 and 44.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 99:
In page 80, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:
“
|
No. 29 of 1964 |
Local Government (Sanitary Services) Act 1964 |
The whole Act. |
”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 100:
In page 80, to delete lines 6 to 9.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 101:
In page 80, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:
“
|
No. 39 of 1976 |
Wildlife Act 1976 |
The whole Act. |
”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 102:
In page 80, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:
“
|
No. 21 of 1983 |
Local Government (Financial Provisions) (No. 2) Act 1983 |
Sections 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7. |
”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 103:
In page 80, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following:
“
|
No. 14 of 1990 |
Derelict Sites Act 1990 |
The whole Act. |
”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 104:
In page 80, to delete lines 37 and 38.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 105:
In page 80, to delete lines 50 and 51.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 106:
In page 81, to delete line 3.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 107:
In page 81, to delete lines 4 and 5.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 108:
In page 81, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:
“
|
No. 31 of 1997 |
Prompt Payment of Local Accounts Act 1997 |
The whole Act. |
|
No. 16 of 1998 |
Local Government Act 1998 |
Sections 5, 6(2), 7 and 12. |
”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 109:
In page 81, to delete lines 17 to 28 and substitute the following:
“
|
No. 30 of 2000 |
Planning and Development Act 2000 |
Sections 5, 7, 8, 18(3), 22, 31I(3), 31AI(4), 31AW(2), 57, 59, 60, 61, 69, 70, 71 to 79, 82, 83, 87, 88, 89, 90, 96, 96B, 97, 101, 147, 148, 170, 178, 178A, 179A, 180, 182, 206, 208, 209, 216, 217, 217B, 219, 247, 248, 249, 252, 254, 261 and 261A; Part III; Chapters III and IV of Part VI; Parts VIII, X, XA, XII, XVI, XVII and XXI. |
”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 110 not moved.
Government amendment No. 111:
In page 81, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:
“
|
No. 38 of 2000 |
Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000 |
The whole Act, other than Part VA. |
”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 112:
In page 81, to delete lines 29 to 47.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 113:
In page 81, to delete line 48.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 114:
In page 81, to delete lines 49 and 50.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 115:
In page 81, after line 55, to insert the following:
“
|
No. 30 of 2007 |
Water Services Act 2007 |
The whole Act. |
”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 116:
In page 82, to delete lines 3 to 6.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 117:
In page 82, to delete lines 7 and 8.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 118:
In page 82, to delete lines 9 and 10.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 119:
In page 82, to delete lines 11 and 12.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 120:
In page 82, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:
“
|
No. 14 of 2014 |
Protected Disclosures Act 2014 |
The whole Act. |
”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 121:
In page 82, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:
“
|
No. 33 of 2015 |
Urban Regeneration and Housing Act 2015 |
Part 2. |
”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 122:
In page 82, to delete lines 24 and 25 and substitute the following:
“
|
No. 24 of 2019 |
Local Government Rates and Other Matters Act 2019 |
Sections 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 16. |
”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 123:
In page 82, to delete lines 26 and 27.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 124:
In page 82, to delete lines 28 to 35 and substitute the following:
“
|
No. 28 of 2022 |
Remediation of Dwellings Damaged by the Use of Defective Concrete Blocks Act 2022 |
The whole Act. |
|
No. 48 of 2022 |
Water Environment (Abstractions and Associated Impoundments) Act 2022 |
Sections 90, 91, 97, 101 and 108. |
”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 125:
In page 82, to delete lines 37 to 39.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 126:
In page 84, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:
“
|
S.I. No. 580 of 2012 |
European Communities (Late Payment in Commercial Transactions) Regulations 2012 |
The whole instrument. |
”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 127:
In page 84, between lines 46 and 47, to insert the following:
“
|
S.I. No. 297 of 2016 |
European Union Habitats (Tory Hill Special Area of Conservation 000439) Regulations 2016 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 298 of 2016 |
European Union Habitats (Clare Glen Special Area of Conservation 000930) Regulations 2016 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 299 of 2016 |
European Union Habitats (Glen Bog Special Area of Conservation 001430) Regulations 2016 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 221 of 2017 |
European Union Habitats (Carrigeenamronety Hill Special Area of Conservation 002037) Regulations 2017 |
The whole instrument. |
”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 128:
In page 84, between lines 48 and 49, to insert the following:
“
|
S.I. No. 617 of 2017 |
European Union Habitats (Askeaton Fen Complex Special Area of Conservation 002279) Regulations 2017 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 25 of 2018 |
Housing (Rebuilding Ireland Home Loans) Regulations 2018 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 354 of 2018 |
European Union (Invasive Alien Species) (Freshwater Crayfish) Regulations 2018 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 419 of 2018 |
European Union Habitats (Glenstal Wood Special Area of Conservation 001432) Regulations 2018 |
The whole instrument. |
”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 129:
In page 84, between lines 50 and 51, to insert the following:
“
|
S.I. No. 209 of 2019 |
European Union Habitats (Curraghchase Woods Special Area of Conservation 000174) Regulations 2019 |
The whole instrument. |
|
S.I. No. 329 of 2019 |
European Union Conservation of Wild Birds (River Shannon and River Fergus Estuaries Special Protection Area 004077) Regulations 2019 |
The whole instrument. |
”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 130:
In page 85, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:
“
|
S.I. No. 116 of 2020 |
European Union Habitats (Galtee Mountains Special Area of Conservation 000646) Regulations 2020 |
The whole instrument. |
”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 131:
In page 85, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:
“
|
S.I. No. 367 of 2020 |
Protected Disclosures Act 2014 (Disclosure to Prescribed Persons) Order 2020 |
The whole instrument. |
”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 132:
In page 85, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:
“
|
S.I. No. 344 of 2021 |
European Union Habitats (Ballyhoura Mountains Special Area of Conservation 002036) Regulations 2021 |
The whole instrument. |
”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 133:
In page 85, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:
“
|
S.I. No. 701 of 2021 |
Housing Loans Regulations 2021 |
The whole instrument. |
”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 134:
In page 85, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:
“
|
S.I. No. 561 of 2022 |
European Union Habitats (Barrigone Special Area of Conservation 000432) Regulations 2022 |
The whole instrument. |
”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 135:
In page 85, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following:
“
|
S.I. No. 328 of 2023 |
European Union Habitats (Lower River Shannon Special Area of Conservation 002165) Regulations 2023 |
The whole instrument. |
”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 136:
In page 86, after line 7, to insert the following:
“
|
S.I. No. 696 of 2023 |
Local Government Rates (Financial Procedures) Regulations 2023 |
The whole instrument. |
”.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
SCHEDULE 2
Amendment No. 137 not moved.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
SCHEDULE 3
Government amendment No. 138:
In page 145, to delete lines 25 to 29 and substitute the following:
“
|
15. |
Section 132 |
Section shall, in addition to its applying in respect of the functions of the director general, apply in respect of the functions of the Mayor as if— |
”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 139:
In page 150, to delete lines 6 to 13 and substitute the following:
“
|
19. |
Section 138 |
Section shall, in addition to its applying in respect of the functions of the director general, apply in respect of the functions of the Mayor as if “Mayor of Limerick” were substituted for “chief executive” in each place that it occurs. |
”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 140:
In page 150, to delete lines 48 to 53 and substitute the following:
“
|
23. |
Section 149 |
Section shall, in addition to its applying in respect of the functions of the director general, apply in respect of the functions of the Mayor as if— |
”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 141:
In page 152, to delete lines 3 to 8 and substitute the following:
“
|
24. |
Section 151 |
Section shall, in addition to its applying in respect of the functions of the director general, apply in respect of the functions of the Mayor as if— |
”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 142:
In page 153, to delete lines 20 to 24 and substitute the following:
“
|
25. |
Section 153 |
Section shall, in addition to its applying in respect of the functions of the director general, apply in respect of the functions of the Mayor as if— |
”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 143:
In page 161, to delete lines 18 to 25 and substitute the following:
“
|
36. |
Section 229 |
Section shall, in addition to its applying in respect of the functions of the director general, apply in respect of the functions of the Mayor as if “Mayor of Limerick” were substituted for “chief executive” in each place that it occurs. |
”.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
TITLE
Amendment No. 144 affects the Long Title of the Bill. It arises out of the instruction to committee motion proposed by the leaders. It has already been discussed.
Government amendment No. 144:
In page 9, lines 23 and 24, to delete all words from and including “and” where it secondly occurs in line 23 down to and including line 24 and substitute the following:
“to increase the borrowing limit of the Housing Finance Agency and for that purpose to amend the Housing Finance Agency Act 1981; to extend the power of the Minister for Finance to direct the National Treasury Management Agency to pay money to the Land Development Agency in certain circumstances and for that purpose to amend the National Treasury Management Agency (Amendment) Act 2014; and to provide for matters connected therewith.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Title, as amended, be the Title to the Bill."
I thank the Acting Chair and Members for their time and patience on the Bill. It is significant legislation, not only for the people of Limerick but for Ireland overall. This will be the first democratically elected mayor. I thank Members for their work.
I signal to the House that, having given the matter further consideration, it is currently my intention to possibly bring forward an amendment to the Land Development Agency Act on Report Stage. This amendment concerns additional funding for the LDA. Officials in my Department are working with the Office of Parliamentary Counsel regarding the wording of this amendment.
Furthermore, I have already indicated that I am considering further amendments on Report Stage during our discussions in the debate. I will probably table a further amendment to Schedule 1 on Report Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Pursuant to Standing Order 154, it is reported to the Seanad that the Title has been amended and the Bill has been reported with amendments. When is it proposed to take Report Stage?
Next Tuesday.
Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 20 February 2024.
I thank the Acting Chair for the efficiency in how he has conducted the debate. It is hugely important. It was a constructive debate with all Members.
I thank the Minister of State.
Cuireadh an Seanad ar fionraí ar 5.29 p.m. agus cuireadh tús leis arís ar 7 p.m.
Sitting suspended at 5.29 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.