I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, and his officials as we continue Committee Stage of the Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) Bill 2023. We were discussing amendment No. 30 which Deputy Leddin had moved. The Minister of State had responded and we will now go back to Deputy Leddin.
Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) Bill 2023: Committee Stage (Resumed)
NEW SECTION
Debate resumed on amendment No. 30:
In page 26, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:
“Report on new sources of income
35. The Mayor may prepare a report for the consideration of the Minister for Finance identifying potential new sources of income for the local authority for the development of Limerick, based on international best practice.”.
- (Deputy Brian Leddin).
I welcome the Minister of State. Yesterday I explained the rationale for this amendment. In time, as the office of mayor evolves, not only in Limerick but throughout the country, we will probably look at new revenue streams for the office and a different kind of service being provided by mayors in this country. Having the benefit of the adjournment of the debate and having listened to the Minister of State's response yesterday, he suggested, if I heard him correctly, that this kind of issue might more appropriately fit in the review of the Act. I accept there is a rationale to that. We could argue the toss on it but if the Minister of State is minded to look at it in the context of the review of the Act and gives a commitment to come back with something on Report Stage, I will be happy to withdraw the amendment.
I will come back to this issue on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 35 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS
Amendment No. 31 has already been discussed.
I move amendment 31:
In page 27, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:
“Amendment of Seanad Electoral (University Members) Act 1937
36. The Seanad Electoral (University Members) Act 1937 is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 29A:
“Cesser of membership of Seanad in certain circumstances
29B. Where a member of Seanad Éireann for a university constituency is deemed to be elected as Mayor of Limerick under paragraph 54 of Chapter 12 of Schedule 2 to the Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) Act 2023, he or she shall thereupon cease to be such member and a vacancy shall exist accordingly in the membership of Seanad Éireann.”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 32:
In page 27, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:
“Amendment of Seanad Electoral (Panel Members) Act 1947
37. The Seanad Electoral (Panel Members) Act 1947 is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 80A:
“Cesser of membership of Seanad in certain circumstances
80B. Where a member of Seanad Éireann elected under this Act is deemed to be elected as Mayor of Limerick under paragraph 54 of Chapter 12 of Schedule 2 to the Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) Act 2023, he or she shall thereupon cease to be such member and a vacancy shall exist accordingly in the membership of Seanad Éireann.”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 36
Amendments Nos. 33 to 39, inclusive, 41, 42, 44 to 46, inclusive, and 77 to 81, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 27, to delete lines 22 and 23 and substitute the following:
“(b) in section 11, by the substitution, in subsection (2), of “European, local or Limerick mayoral election or a referendum or plebiscite” for “European or local election or a referendum”,”.
These amendments seek to amend sections 36 and 41 of the Bill. Section 36 provides for a number of necessary minor and consequential amendments to the Electoral Act 1992. The amendments to the 1992 Act are primarily concerned with making provision in electoral law for a mayor of Limerick election and plebiscites that might be held in other local authority areas on the direct election of mayors.
On the amendments to section 41, this section provides for necessary minor and consequential amendments to the Electoral Reform Act 2022. The 2022 Act provided for certain functions for An Coimisiún Toghcháin, including reports on the administration of elections, the registration of political parties and promoting public awareness of and participation in the State’s electoral and democratic processes, including encouraging the public to voter at electoral events.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 27, to delete lines 31 and 32 and substitute the following:
“(d) in section 14—
(i) by the substitution, in paragraph (c) of subsection (2), of “European, local or Limerick mayoral election, or a referendum or plebiscite” for “European or local election, or a referendum”, and
(ii) by the substitution, in subsection (2), of “that election, referendum or plebiscite” for “that election or referendum”,”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 27, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:
“(e) in section 15C—
(i) by the substitution of “election, referendum or plebiscite” for “election or a referendum”,
(ii) by the substitution of “election, referendum or plebiscite,” for “election or referendum,” in each place it occurs, and
(iii) by the substitution of “elections, referendums or plebiscites.” for “elections or referendums.”,
(f) in section 15D, in subsection (6)—
(i) by the substitution of “election, referendum or plebiscite” for “election or a referendum”, and
(ii) by the substitution of “election, referendum or plebiscite.” for “election or referendum.”,”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 28, to delete lines 4 and 5 and substitute the following:
“(ii) in subsection (6), of “European, local or Limerick mayoral election or a referendum or plebiscite,” for “European or local election, or a referendum,” and of “that election, referendum or plebiscite,” for “that election or referendum,”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 28, to delete lines 6 to 8 and substitute the following:
“(f) in section 17A, by the substitution of the following subparagraph for subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (a) of subsection (4):
“(ii) shall, if an order appointing polling day is made in the case of a Dáil, presidential, European, local or Limerick mayoral election, or a referendum or plebiscite, and the person will reach 18 years on a day that falls during the period beginning on the last day on which applications for entry in the register can be received and ending on polling day in the case of such an election, referendum or plebiscite, enter the name of the person on the register of electors published for the purpose of the election, referendum or plebiscite, as the case may be, or election and referendum and plebiscite, in respect of which the order appointing polling day was made, and”,”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 28, to delete lines 10 and 11 and substitute the following:
“(i) the substitution, in subsection (1), of “, local elections, Limerick mayoral elections and plebiscites” for “and local elections”, and”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 39:
In page 28, line 15, to delete “Limerick mayoral election” and substitute “Limerick mayoral election or a plebiscite”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 40 was discussed with Amendment No. 9.
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 28, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:
“(h) in section 42, by—
(i) the substitution, in paragraph (c) of subsection (1), of “Comptroller and Auditor General, or” for “Comptroller and Auditor General,”, and
(ii) the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph (c):
“(d) is deemed to be elected as Mayor of Limerick under paragraph 54 of Chapter 12 of Schedule 2 to the Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) Act 2023,”,”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 41:
In page 28, to delete lines 23 to 25 and substitute the following:
“(ii) in subsection (3), by the substitution, in subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (d), of “elections or a referendum or plebiscite” for “elections or a referendum” and “Local Elections Acts 1963 to 1992, the Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) Act 2023” for “Local Elections Acts, 1963 to 1992,”,”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 42:
In page 28, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following:
“(i) in Rule 1, by—
(I) the substitution of “election, referendum or plebiscite” for “election or referendum” in each place it occurs, and
(II) by the substitution, in paragraph (3), of “election, a referendum or a plebiscite” for “election or a referendum”,
(ii) in Rule 7, by the substitution, in paragraph (2), of “election, referendum or plebiscite” for “election or referendum” in both places it occurs,”
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 29, line 10, to delete “that Act” and substitute “of that Act”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 44:
In page 29, to delete line 20.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 45:
In page 30, line 13, to delete “or a referendum”.” and substitute “or a referendum.”, and”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 46:
In page 30, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
“(iii) in Rule 39, in subparagraph (b) of paragraph (2), by—
(I) the substitution of “election, referendum or plebiscite” for “election or referendum” in each place it occurs, and
(II) the substitution of “or all,” for “or both,”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 36, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 37
Amendments Nos. 47 to 52, inclusive, 54 to 65, inclusive, and 67 to 73, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 47:
In page 30, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:
"(i) by the substitution, in subsection (1), of the following definition for the definition of "election":
" 'election', except in Parts VII and VIII, means, as the context may require, a Dáil election, a European election or a Limerick mayoral election or any combination thereof;",".
These amendments provide for necessary minor consequential amendments to the section, which amends the Electoral Act 1997. Section 37 also inserts a new Part X, entitled, "Spending and donations at elections for mayor of Limerick", comprising 21 sections, into the Electoral Act to provide for the limitation of expenditure at a Limerick mayoral election, the reimbursement of election expenditure and for the disclosure of both donations and election expenses. These new sections will appear as sections 93 to 113, included in the amended Electoral Act 1997. That Act legislates for electoral spending and donations requirements as they apply at Dáil, Seanad, European Parliament and presidential elections. These amendments under the section and the insertion of the new Part X will extend the scope of the Electoral Act so that it will now apply in respect of a Limerick mayoral election.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 48:
In page 30, to delete lines 21 and 22.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 49:
In page 30, to delete lines 25 to 32 and substitute the following:
" " 'political party', except in Parts VI and IX, means a political party registered in the Register of Political Parties in accordance with Chapter 6 of Part 2 of the Electoral Reform Act 2022 as a party organised to contest—
(a) an election for membership of Dáil Éireann,
(b) an election for membership of the European Parliament, or
(c) a Limerick mayoral election;",".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 50:
In page 31, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:
"(d) in section 4B, by—
(i) the substitution, in subsection (1), of ", IX or X" for "or IX",
(ii) the substitution, in subsection (9), of ", IX or X" for "or IX", and
(iii) the substitution, in subsection (10), of ", 92(1)(e), 113(2)(d), 113(2)(e),113(4)(a), 113(4)(b), 113(4)(c), 113(4)(d) and 113(4)(e)" for "and 92(1)(d)",".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 51:
In page 31, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:
"(i) the substitution, in paragraph (a) of subsection (2), of "House of the Oireachtas, the Mayor of Limerick, a representative in the European Parliament or a third party or a candidate at a Dáil, Seanad, Limerick mayoral or European election" for "House of the Oireachtas, a representative in the European Parliament or a third party or a candidate at a Dáil, Seanad or European election",
(ii) the substitution, in subparagraph (vi) of paragraph (a) of subsection (2), of "House of the Oireachtas, the Mayor of Limerick, a representative in the European Parliament or a third party or a candidate at a Dáil, Seanad, Limerick mayoral or European election" for "House of the Oireachtas, a representative in the European Parliament or a third party or a candidate at a Dáil, Seanad or European election",
(iii) the substitution, in subparagraph (vii) of paragraph (a) of subsection (2), of "Dáil, Seanad, Limerick mayoral or European election" for "Dáil, Seanad or European election",
(iv) the substitution, in paragraph (aa) of subsection (2), in the definition of "political purposes", of—
(I) "House of the Oireachtas, the Mayor of Limerick" for "House of the Oireachtas" in clause (I) of subparagraph (i),
(II) "House of the Oireachtas, the Mayor of Limerick" for "House of the Oireachtas" in clause (II) of subparagraph (i),
(III) "House of the Oireachtas, the Mayor of Limerick" for "House of the Oireachtas" in clause (III) of subparagraph (i), and
(IV) "Dáil, Seanad, Limerick mayoral or European election" for "Dáil, Seanad or European election" in subparagraph (ii),
(v) the substitution, in paragraph (aa) of subsection (2), in the definition of "third party", of "Electoral Reform Act 2022, the Mayor of Limerick" for "Electoral Reform Act 2022",".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 52:
In page 31, to delete lines 22 to 24 and substitute the following:
"(ii) the substitution, in subparagraph (iv) of paragraph (b) of subsection (2), of "a political party, the Mayor of Limerick, a member of either House of the Oireachtas or a representative" for "a political party or a member of either House of the Oireachtas or a representative",".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 53:
In page 33, line 34, to delete " "24, 48 or 95" " and substitute " "24, 48 and 95" ".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 54:
In page 33, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following:
"(q) in section 83, by the insertion of the following definition:
" 'political party' means a political party registered in the Register of Political Parties in accordance with Chapter 6 of Part 2 of the Electoral Reform Act 2022 as a party organised to contest an election for membership of Dáil Éireann or an election for membership of the European Parliament or both such elections;",".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 55:
In page 34, line 2, to delete "ELECTION FOR MAYOR" and substitute "ELECTION OF MAYOR".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 56:
In page 34, to delete lines 14 to 39 and substitute the following: " 'donation' has the same meaning as it has in section 22(2)(a);".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 57:
In page 35, to delete lines 1 to 17 and substitute the following:
" 'election expenses' means all expenses set out in the Schedule incurred in the provision of property, goods or services for use at a Limerick mayoral election during the period referred to in section 101(2) in order—
(a) to promote or oppose, directly or indirectly, the election of a candidate at the Limerick mayoral election or to solicit votes for or against a candidate,
(b) to present the policies or a particular policy of a candidate or the views of a candidate on any matter connected with the Limerick mayoral election or the comments of a candidate on the policy or policies of another candidate at the Limerick mayoral election, or
(c) otherwise to influence the outcome of a Limerick mayoral election,
and the expenses mentioned in the foregoing shall be those, and only those, set out in the Schedule to this Act;".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 58:
In page 36, to delete lines 14 to 27.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 59:
In page 36, line 28, to delete "(4) For" and substitute "(3) For".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 60:
In page 37, line 36, to delete "(5) For" and substitute "(4) For".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 61:
In page 38, line 3, to delete "(6) Where" and substitute "(5) Where".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 62:
In page 38, lines 31 and 32, to delete "Minister for Finance" and substitute "Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 63:
In page 46, line 6, to delete "property or services" and substitute "property, goods or services".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 64:
In page 46, to delete lines 10 to 14 and substitute the following:
"the provision of the property, goods or services shall be deemed to bean election expense and the property, goods or services shall be deemed to have been provided at the commercial price and shall be recorded by the mayoral election agent in the statement required to be furnished to the Commission under section 106.".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 65:
In page 46, lines 20 to 22, to delete all words from and including "subparagraph" in line 20 down to and including "2023" in line 22 and substitute "section 102(1)".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 66 has been ruled out of order.
Amendment No. 66 not moved
I move amendment No. 67:
In page 52, lines 16 and 17, to delete "Minister for Finance, with the approval of the".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 68
In page 52, line 37, to delete "Minister for Finance" and substitute "Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 69:
In page 53, lines 1 and 2, to delete "Minister for Finance" and substitute "Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 70:
In page 55, line 32, to delete "Minister for Finance" and substitute "Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 71:
In page 56, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:
"(2) A person who—
(a) is required to make a statement under section 23AA and who fails to do so or fails to comply with that section as to the form and contents of the statement,
(b) fails to remit to the Commission in accordance with section 23AA such a donation or, in the case of a donation which is a monetary donation, the part of it exceeding the limit specified in that section or the value thereof, or fails to return the donation to the donor or, in the case of a donation which is a monetary donation, the part of the donation exceeding the limit specified in that section,
(c) contravenes section 23AB,
(d) knowingly furnishes information under section 23AB which is false or misleading in any material respect, or
(e) in purported compliance with section 23AB, furnishes information that is false or misleading in any material respect,
shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a class C fine.".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 72:
In page 56, line 13, to delete "(2) A person" and substitute "(3) A person".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 73:
In page 56, line 16, to delete "(3) A mayoral" and substitute "(4) A mayoral".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 37, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 74:
In page 57, after line 41, to insert the following:
"Amendment of European Parliament Elections Act 1997
38. The European Parliament Elections Act 1997 is amended, in subsection (5) of section 11, by—
(a) the substitution, in paragraph (c), of "member of the Seanad, or" for "member of the Seanad,", and
(b) the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph (c):
"(d) is deemed to be elected as Mayor of Limerick under paragraph 54 of Chapter 12 of Schedule 2 to the Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) Act 2023,".".
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 38
I move amendment No. 75:
In page 58, line 11, after "2023," to insert the following:
"where it is on a structure which has been designated by the local authority for such advertisements (in this subparagraph referred to as a 'designated structure'). For the purposes of this subparagraph, the Minister shall make regulations to provide for—
(I) a method for the calculation of the number of designated structures to be permitted in each polling district,
(II) the minimum and maximum dimension of designated structures,
(III) the minimum and maximum dimension of advertisements,
(IV) a method for the calculation of the maximum number of advertisements allowed in respect of each candidate, or proposal which is the subject of the referendum, on each designated structure,
(V) the permissible locations for designated structures, and
(VI) for such other matters that are necessary or consequential to any of the matters referred to in clauses (I) to (V),”.
The amendment intends to see the campaign for a directly elected mayor in Limerick next year as an opportunity for a new approach to how we run elections in this country. Every elected Member in this room knows very well how we go about it. We print posters and put them up all over our constituencies. We try to get the best locations. That is a part of the electoral process in Ireland. However, there is enormous wastage associated with that, as the Minister of State will agree. The amendment providers for the designation of areas in constituencies in the Limerick city and county areas, as would be the case for the directly elected mayoral election, for candidates' posters so that we have a neater, cleaner, tidier and more environmentally friendly campaign. Suggestions along these lines have been made over the years. It would be a move in respect of how elections are conducted in European countries. It is appropriate that we would look to make such changes. The election of a mayor in Limerick is an opportunity to try something such as this. It is positive.
I thank the Deputy for the amendment. I accept that it is well-intentioned and it is an interesting point. The programme for Government, Our Shared Future, contains a commitment to examine the use of posters during referendums and elections. The commitment in the programme envisages a role for the electoral commission to examine and make recommendations on the issue of the use of posters at electoral events. Members will be aware that earlier this year, the electoral commission, An Coimisiún Toghcháin, was formally established. In July, my colleague, the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, wrote to An Coimisiún Toghcháin and outlined a number of issues that he suggested the commission might include in its initial research programme. The issue of the use of posters at elections and referendums was included in the request. I am happy to report that the commission's draft research programme, published last week, includes proposals to examine the issue of posters. We will revisit policy in this area once the commission has considered and made recommendations on the issue. In light of the process under way, we believe it would be premature to legislate. It is prudent to allow the electoral commission carry out this examination and, therefore, I cannot at this time accept the amendment. However, I again acknowledge the spirit in which it is put forward.
I accept the Minister of State's response. I will withdraw the amendment. I look forward, as the system changes, to us, as politicians, changing how we do posters for elections, going forward. It is important that we do so. I accept that other bodies are looking at the issue and that change will come in time.
This is an issue that involves all of us who partake in election campaigns. We put up and take down posters. It is time-consuming and expensive. The fundamental issue we need to be very careful about is that it is an important part of election campaigning. Especially in some traditionally working-class areas, and some people might not believe this, there are some people who are not aware that an election is taking place until the posters go up on the poles. We can live in a bubble of elections and politics. Many people are not aware that elections are happening.
Some statistics and reports confirm that posters increase turnout. A small turnout will be increased by the use of posters. It is important. I have no problem with looking at and changing how we use them at the moment but I have concerns. It does not particularly affect my party but it does impact smaller parties and newer candidates. We need to be very careful about what we are doing when we look to change our approach to the use of posters. This issue comes up at every election. Most Tidy Towns organisations do not want posters in their areas. We have problems during every election campaign. I do not mind considering the issue but it is important to remember that putting up posters is an important part of the democratic process, especially for smaller parties and newer candidates. I would be very careful before deciding to make any changes.
It was interesting listening to Deputy Quinlivan. From experience, I can say that a party can go from being very big to very small very quickly.
During my time in local government, I spent a lot of time thinking about the issue of posters. Dublin City Council came around to the view that it had more powers to work on the issue than it realised. That was when it took the initiative to regulate the number of public meeting posters. We saw, in the past, the use of public meeting posters to tee-up a candidate, if you want to put it like that. I have no issue with that; it is an important part of democracy. The council decided to regulate that and specified that only a percentage of the poster could be dedicated to the candidate. A maximum number was defined. The council said that it owned the street poles and could decide what went on them and how they would be regulated. While there are waivers and exemptions for the election under the litter laws, the council decided in that scenario it was going to regulate matters. It did that, and does that, and it works well. It is not a governance nightmare.
The only police we need are our competitors to tell the council when they have stepped out of line. It is a pity they were not able to get a proposal over the line which would have done the same for local elections. Dublin City Council put a proposal to its councillors that the local area committee would decide on 30, 40 or 50 junctions where people would hang one poster each, which is a very simple system. We could all see if someone had hung up more than one poster. All of the junctions would be agreed upon by the councillors, not by some bureaucrats in the Custom House.
If politicians do not tackle the issue of posters, the public and national Government will respond. The current system of posters is completely unsustainable. It is unsustainable more than anything else for the candidates who have to get the bloody things up. What we have to do then is get involved in "wallpaper", as I call it. One candidate has 300 posters so the next guy has to have 400 posters. Then he gets 400 posters and then posters go up at the last minute. It is a bizarre system and we have locked ourselves into a cycle. Whatever happens, I encourage us to make a move on this whether it is with the new Electoral Commission. With posters likely to be €10 per poster in the next election and we have rightly limited the ability to fundraise and for corporate donations, it will become unsustainable. My view is we will never get a system that will be perfectly regulated. We would be better to just put in a system and regulate each other.
Deputy Leddin has withdrawn his amendment on the basis of the Minister of State's response, but if it is helpful for committee members and the Minister of State we have set a date to invite the Electoral Commission to a meeting. There are a number of areas the committee wishes to discuss with it around the register, the information campaigns, informing people about elections, and I think posters will be discussed as well. We all dislike climbing up ladders in the wind with cable ties and trying to find the best spots. There is a real road safety issue as well because the posters do not just go up on poles; they go up on traffic lights and lamp posts and signposts. I really fear that someday someone will either fall and be badly injured or that a poster will come down on somebody. We really need to regulate. Does the Minister of State wish to conclude?
I wish to conclude. I presume what Deputy McAuliffe said was a generalisation. I have found officials in the Custom House to be very normal and down to earth, not bureaucrats.
I would not like them to be picking the locations of my posters, though.
Committee members will appreciate that my comments will be somewhat tempered, being a Minister of State at the Department, but the greatest critics of their posters are, as they all well know, their supporters: "Where are your posters? They are not up. Everyone else has them up." It is a wider question and I take Deputy Quinlivan's point about campaigning. It gives reassurance in a big way, certainly to supporters, so there are a lot of dynamics here. The Electoral Commission will obviously consider it all in the round and I welcome the fact it is coming before the committee.
Amendment No. 75 has been withdrawn on the basis that the Electoral Commission will deal with that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 38 agreed to.
Sections 39 and 40 agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 76:
In page 58, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:
“Amendment of Data Protection Act 2018
41. The Data Protection Act 2018 is amended—
(a) in section 2, by the insertion of the following definition:
“ ‘Mayor of Limerick’ has the meaning assigned to it by section 9 of the Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) Act 2023;”,
and
(b) in section 39, by the substitution of the following paragraph for paragraph (c) of subsection (3):
“(c) a candidate for election to the office of President of Ireland, or Mayor of Limerick, or for membership of either House of the Oireachtas, the European Parliament or a local authority.”.”.
Section 39 of the Data Protection Act 2018 allows for communications by specified persons to data subjects in respect of the specified person's electoral activities in the State. The amendment I propose provides for the inclusion of candidates for election to the office of the mayor of Limerick as specified persons in respect of the 2018 Act. In effect, this will allow candidates in mayoral election to use data from the electoral register to communicate with those on the register, as is the case with candidates for all other types of elections in this country.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 41
I move amendment No. 77:
In page 58, line 36, to delete “definition” and substitute “definitions”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 78:
In page 59, line 1, to delete “2023;”,” and substitute “2023;”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 79:
In page 59, between lines 1 and 2, to insert the following:
“ ‘plebiscite’ means a plebiscite held under Part 6 of the Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) Act 2023;”,”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 80:
In page 59, line 32, to delete “following paragraph” and substitute “following paragraphs”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 81:
In page 59, to delete line 33 and substitute the following:
“ “(g) a Limerick mayoral election;
(h) a plebiscite.”,”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 41, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment No. 82 has been ruled out of order.
Amendment No. 82 not moved.
Section 42 agreed to.
SECTION 43
Amendments Nos. 83, 84, 86 and 88 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 83:
In page 60, to delete lines 32 to 34 and substitute the following:
“(i) the majority of the elected council approves a proposal by resolution,”.
I will speak about amendment No. 83, and then amendment No. 84. This amendment is about how to initiate a plebiscite on having a directly elected mayor. There a few different ways in the Bill that a plebiscite can be initiated. One is the corporate policy group of a local authority submits a report to the elected council of the local authority recommending a proposal that there be a plebiscite, and if a majority of the council go with that, there can be a plebiscite. My amendment seeks to effectively take out the role of the corporate policy group in that. I am not sure what the rationale is as to why the corporate policy group must be involved and what the benefit of that is and why it should not simply a majority of the elected members without having to go through the corporate policy group. Certainly, I am sure it varies from local authority to local authority but while there is a proportionality in the composition of the corporate policy group, it is not 100% proportional. It can be a little bit skewed in terms of the majority. Probably more significantly, I know a number of local authorities, for example, will webcast their main council meetings so they are fully transparent and the media and members of the public can attend, whereas that does not apply to corporate policy group meetings, which are effectively behind closed doors. There is not that same level of transparency in terms of the corporate policy groups. Indeed, by their very nature they are very close. They have a very close relationship between the elected members of the council who run the corporate policy group and the executive of the council. It would be very challenging to see a proposal come through a corporate policy that the chief executive of the council was opposed to. It is possible but chief executives do have very high influence, particularly on the way corporate policy group meetings are structured, are called, the agendas are formed, and everything else, whereas the elected members have a bit less in terms of a power imbalance in local authorities and in terms of the full elected council. I just do not see the benefit or rationale of having to go through the corporate policy group unless that is designed as a mechanism to make it more difficult for elected members to call plebiscites by a majority. That is actually what the wording I seek to take out does.
Amendment No. 84 is about how a plebiscite could be called by getting a petition with signatures of the electorate. The current wording in the Bill is more than 20% of the electorate of an administrative area of a local authority and I seek to reduce that to 10%. The rationale for this is, and I spoke about it on Second Stage, that even to achieve 10% of signatures of the full electorate in the local authority area is a threshold that is very high and very difficult to achieve in practical terms. If we think about 20% and trying to get those registered, and if we had a campaign to do that and called to every accessible home in the local authority area, considering urban areas with apartments and so forth, 80% of homes would not be accessible. Even if we imagine that 80% of homes were accessible, to achieve a 20% signatory rate, one in four or one in three homes might answer, and at best, at particular times of the day, one in two might answer.
Let us just imagine we get the maximum number and that one in two answer. To achieve the 20% required, we probably would need everyone present at the time we called to sign the petition. If one person in the entire local electoral area said they did not think it was a good idea and did not agree with it, it would probably be physically impossible to get 20%. We would have to call around every home a second and perhaps a third time, and even then we still might not get the 20%, even if there is a clear majority in the electoral area that wants to sign this. It is just the logistics of getting that. It could be said this could be done online and we could make it available, but if it is an online petition and there is a mechanism around that, in reality, to achieve these sorts of massive large numbers, a door-to-door campaign would be needed. Ten per cent is almost impossible to achieve and 20% is utterly impossible. It makes this provision of the Bill, the public being able to call a plebiscite, redundant and unachievable unless the Minister of State is able to explain to me in practical terms how that could be achieved.
Does Deputy McAuliffe wish to come in on amendment No. 84?
I also think 20% is a very high threshold. It does not apply in Dublin but if those numbers were applied there, for example, I cannot even imagine how you would spearhead a campaign. The turnout in local elections in some parts of Dublin might not break 40% and the Minister of State is talking about generating a figure half of that for a petition. It essentially puts a threshold that is too high for any local authority to ever initiate the process. I ask the Minister of State to reflect on that figure specifically.
On the issue of the corporate policy group, CPG, I would not like a vote sprung on the council, in the sense that there is a random proposer, it is on the agenda and then suddenly it is voted on. I like the idea of a process beforehand, whether that is with the CPG or whether it comes through a strategic policy committee, SPC, stringing it out or giving more debate to it. I have no problem with that but I think the 20% is unachievable.
Deputy Quinlivan's amendment No. 88 is grouped here. He may speak to the other two amendments as well as amendment No. 88.
I will speak to Deputy O'Callaghan's amendment No. 84 first. I agree that 20% is way too high. While the figure of 20% does not sound too high, it would be very high if you actually have to go out and get it. Looking at Limerick, when we had the referendum or plebiscite on the directly elected mayor, the turnout was about 50%. Approximately 70,000 people voted on that. If you double that for the electorate, it would be about 150,000 people, and 20% of that is 30,000 people. I challenge anybody to get 30,000 signatures on something like having a directly elected mayor. If we had to do that in Limerick, for instance, we would not be having a plebiscite, so I suggest we put it down to 10%. That would be difficult enough to get as well, if we are honest, but it is achievable, whereas 20% is probably not achievable.
Amendment No. 88 is to change not later than two years to not later than 12 months. The reason we are doing that is to ensure the report is presented to the Oireachtas not later than 12 months after a successful plebiscite. This comes from experience in Limerick. There will be almost a five-year delay between the plebiscite in Limerick and the event of the first directly elected mayor. Regarding the appetite for that position, I genuinely believe that if the referendum were held today, and I hate to say this, unfortunately, it probably would be defeated. The sense I have got in recent weeks is people are just not interested anymore. With plebiscites in other areas, such a report would need to be presented to the Oireachtas a year after the plebiscite and not delayed any further. I think we made a critical mistake. There were mitigating factors, such as the Covid pandemic in the middle of it. There are reasons people are disengaged with it. I think the appetite for it did not really exist anyway because, as I said, it only narrowly passed. We are now dealing with the reaction I have had from people in the past couple of days, which is that the Bill is weak and it was not what they were promised by the previous Minister of State with responsibility for the area, Deputy John Paul Phelan, during and after the campaign. However, we are where we are. I suggest we change two years to 12 months, and that is one of the reasons I am suggesting to do so.
I propose to address amendments No. 83, 84, and 88 as they have been grouped together for discussion. I presume I am not-----
Is there anybody to speak to amendment No. 86? No. The Minister of State can address amendments Nos. 83, 84 and 88.
They relate to Part 6, which deals with the holding of plebiscites to consider proposals by other local authorities to provide for a directly elected mayor of their administrative area.
Amendments No. 83 and 84 in the name of Deputy Cian O'Callaghan relate to the process to initiate a plebiscite proposal. Section 43 provides that a plebiscite of the electors of an administrative area may be proposed in the circumstances where a local authority corporate policy group recommends it and the elected council approves it, a petition is signed by more than 20% of the electorate and the chief executive certifies it, or the Minister directs it.
Amendment No. 83 proposes to remove the step whereby the corporate policy group considers the matter of a plebiscite and proposes it to the full council for consideration and that the matter would rather simply be one for the council. I have no doubt Deputy O'Callaghan, as he articulated, has a rationale for the proposal, but in my view, going back to what Deputy McAuliffe said, it is appropriate for the corporate policy group to have a role in this matter and to support the council in its consideration of this matter in a cohesive way.
Amendment No. 84 seeks to alter the requirement for a petition to be signed by a percentage of the electorate and seeks to reduce to 10% from 20%. It is similar to a recommendation the Deputy made in the pre-legislative scrutiny in the committee, which sought to lower the percentage of registered eligible voters required to sign a petition for a mayoral plebiscite. The rationale behind the recommendation was that the electoral register contains a significant number of people who may be deceased, have relocated, have emigrated and so on. Therefore, to get 20% eligible voters would in fact be closer to 25% or 30% of those listed on the register, which Deputy Quinlivan referenced. It was recommended that the threshold of 20% be lowered. However, this same argument could be used to increase the threshold.
I would add that, since its enactment, the implementation of a number of provisions in the Electoral Reform Act 2022 has and will continue to improve the integrity of the electoral register. The provisions in section 43 of the Bill are consistent with the programme for Government with regard to holding plebiscites. Reading directly from the programme for Government, the commitments regarding directly elected mayors allows:
for plebiscites to be held in 2024 in any local authority that wishes to have a directly elected mayor. Demand will be demonstrated at the request of the local authority or by [means] of a petition from 20% of registered voters.
On the basis that the provisions are consistent with programme for Government, I cannot accept this amendment.
Amendment No. 88 in the name of Deputy Quinlivan relates to section 48. That section provides that, where the outcome of a plebiscite is in favour of a directly elected mayor, the Minister shall, within two years, prepare and submit a report to the Oireachtas containing proposals for legislative measures to provide for a directly elected mayor of that administrative area. Amendment No. 88 proposes to require the Minister to act within a 12-month or one-year period. While it is anticipated that the experience of and the learnings taken from the establishment of the office of directly elected mayor with executive functions in Limerick city and county will be informative and provide important insights in any future process, it would be important for the Minister to have sufficient time to consider the detail of the plebiscite proposal and develop policy and legislative proposals having regard to the specific local authority area involved. For example, in the case of the Limerick proposal for the directly elected mayor, that process involved the establishment of the independent advisory group under the chairmanship of Tim O'Connor and its subsequent report, which facilitated consultation with a wide range of key stakeholders which informed the subsequent legislation. I do not think we should potentially rule out that type of engagement, which I think was, in the main, very positive, by restricting the time period within which the Minister is required to act. Therefore, I cannot accept this amendment. There is no reason the Minister could not do it earlier but I think we have to give sufficient latitude that is not too long of a period to get it right. Therefore, on that basis, I cannot accept amendment No. 88.
On amendment No. 84, I put forward detailed reasons as to why I proposed it.
With respect, the Minister of State did not address those: he addressed the issues around the integrity of the electoral register, which I did not even go into. I was talking about the difficulties and practicalities of achieving 20% of the electorate signing up. That is an impossible threshold to meet. Will the Minister of State address my point?
I addressed it.
I have no intention of putting any of the amendments I have to a vote because I hope the Minister of State will take on board what I said and address the points.
Can I address them? There are two specific points. On the corporate policy group versus the chamber itself, the vote will ultimately be taken by the chamber. Concerning process, we feel a corporate policy group is the correct one. Going back to the points raised earlier, it must be done in a structured way. There cannot be a situation in which people put down motions, for example, on the floor of the chamber and it may not have that structure-----
I apologise through the Chair. I was asking about amendment No. 84. I heard the Minister of State and Deputy McAuliffe on amendment No. 83. I am asking about amendment No. 84.
This is about 10% versus 20%. There are a number of reasons, one being that the programme for Government specifies 20%. A decision was taken by the Government for it to be 20%. That alone, at this moment in time, is a decision of the Government. As a Minister of State with responsibility in this area, I have to implement that. Electoral registers also have improved and the integrity of the process is a lot better. Based on those two points, I cannot accept the amendment because the Government made that decision. I will take what the Deputy said under advisement and reflect on it. The Government made the decision on the 20%. It is a Government decision, not mine.
When any local authority has a referendum, the Minister in situ will be well aware that it is taking place and of the outcome, so a year is enough time to do it. Speaking from experience in Limerick, the report should be sent to the Oireachtas up to a year after the election is held. Otherwise, we are in danger of it going further and further and we saw what happened in Limerick.
The implementation advisory group, IAG, report provided a significant benefit to the process. It was detailed. I know the Deputy has issues with some of it but generally it brought a huge degree of information. We adopted many of its proposals. It is not just about speed; it is about putting something in place that works and is correct. There is nothing to stop a Minister bringing it through in less than two years but he or she should be given latitude. If a Minister was minded to go away and just do a report without involving all stakeholders in Limerick or wherever, many politicians across the spectrum would be critical of that. It is the process. Based on our experience in Limerick to date, the IAG report brought huge added value to the process.
I am not suggesting that we cannot have an IAG report for the general area as well. It should be done within a year because of the experience we had in Limerick. Timeframes can be missed, things can go on for longer and people can get annoyed about the process, especially when they went out and voted for something. We go and knock on doors and ask them to do something. It was narrowly passed in Limerick. A whole section of people there do not want this at all. We are now trying to persuade those people, as well as the people who voted for it, that we will go through with the process. The Minister of State said other areas might have this election but the report should be done and given to the Oireachtas within a year. The Minister in situ will know the referendum is coming and he or she can put plans in place for if there is a yes or no vote. A year is not too short. Two years is too long. On that basis, I will press the amendment.
The vote in Limerick was 52% to 48%. Some 48% of the public in Limerick voted against the plebiscite. They are hugely important in our reflection on the mayoralty. It should not be a rash report; it should take that into account. We want to bring people with us. The IAG report was across all stakeholders. We must give a Minister some period of latitude. Every local authority, city or area will have its own local dynamic. There may be tweaks and slight differences in the type of directly elected mayor put in situ as regards structures. We hope this will be a blueprint. It may be subject to variations in different areas because there may be different circumstances. The substance of what is happening on the ground is also a key factor. The difference between one year and two is not a huge amount of time. However, it may make the difference between something of real quality and something that is perhaps not of that quality, that covers all the aspects we want it to as regards the sustainability of a directly elected mayor model in any local authority area.
A Minister will be in situ when the referendum or plebiscite is called. The Minister will know the date on which it is taking place and he or she can act on that. He or she should plan what he or she will do if there is a yes or no vote. A year is a reasonable duration. The IAG report to which the Minister of State referred is excellent. My only concern is that some stakeholders were not part of it. He said all stakeholders were part of it but they were not.
I referenced the Deputy's-----
The Minister of State also said again after that all stakeholders were involved.
It is very-----
Unfortunately, they were not.
There was a broad range.
I have full confidence in Tim O'Connor, the report and the recommendations. They were excellent. Some of them went into our amendments.
I compliment the Minister of State. It is not often that a Minister of State quotes the programme for Government back to me. Normally, we quote it to the Minister and ask for it to be implemented. He is right; I had not realised 20% is specifically stated in the programme for Government. The spirit of that particular clause was that if the local authority was acting as a barrier, there would be a mechanism for the general populace to try to demand it. Let us be honest; many local councillors do not wish to see a directly elected mayor because there are individual opportunities they may want to pursue. In the rush to develop a programme for Government, the detail is not always spot on. A total of 20% seems to undermine the point of the drafters. On Report Stage, we may look at some mechanism to allow a lower number. It may as well not be in there at all because to get 50% of potential turnout without a campaign to sign a petition is insurmountable. We may develop an alternative mechanism to allow the public to trigger it but that mechanism does not achieve the objective of what we are trying to do.
The Minister of State said that 52% voted for and 48% voted against. He then quoted the programme for Government and said that it states 20%, which I accept. It was also in the programme for Government that there would not be a floating liquefied natural gas, LNG, terminal, on which the Government has done a U-turn. It was one of the Green Party policies. Is it not the case that if something is in the programme for Government, it can be changed? That is one change the Government made overnight. Why can it not change this based on the 48% of people in Limerick who voted against it? That is 48% of the people who voted; it is not 48% of the people of Limerick. A total of 48% of the people who voted in Limerick were against and 52% were for it. As much as I accept the programme for Government, it has been changed in the term of this Government. There is no reason this also cannot be changed.
The Deputy will appreciate that there is a commitment in the programme for Government, but this is something I will consider between now and Report Stage.
I am happy not to press amendment No. 84 to a full vote on that basis. The point is well made by Deputy McAuliffe. With the best will in the world, a huge number of issues get attention during negotiations for a programme for Government. The 20% level would not have been under major scrutiny.
Equally, there is a lot in the programme for Government that has been delivered.
The principle of a plebiscite is probably what received attention. If you do not delve into the detail of that, then 20% looks fine. It is just when you talk it through, which we have the time to do now, it becomes impossible. None of us want measures that are nice on paper but impossible to achieve so I ask the Minister of State to look at that in detail.
It is worth noting that if anybody ever chooses to go into government, they can negotiate a programme for Government.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 84:
In page 61, line 2, to delete “20 per cent” and substitute “10 per cent”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 85:
In page 61, to delete lines 36 to 40, and in page 62, to delete lines 1 to 16 and substitute the following:
“(6) The Minister shall, within such period as the Minister considers reasonable and necessary to enable the Commission to comply with its obligations under subsection (7) in relation to a plebiscite, provide the Commission with information relating to—
(a) the functions and office that are proposed in respect of the directly elected mayor for the administrative area concerned,
(b) the likely effect that the establishment of such office would have on the performance by the local authority concerned of its functions and the likely nature of the relationship between the holder of that office and that local authority,
(c) the likely nature of the relationship between the holder of such office and any other body established by or under statute charged with performing functions in relation to the administrative area concerned,
(d) the likely cost and other resource implications should the proposal be implemented,
(e) the likely effects (if any) that the proposal would have in relation to the functions and organisational structure of any other body established by or under statute, and
(f) such other matters as the Minister considers appropriate.
(7) For the purposes of a plebiscite, the Commission shall—
(a) prepare a statement or statements containing a general explanation of the proposal that is the subject of the plebiscite, which shall include a summary of the information provided by the Minister under subsection (6), and any further information that the Commission considers appropriate, and
(b) not later than 30 days before the day appointed under subsection (2), publish (in both the Irish and English languages) and distribute such statement or statements in relation to the plebiscite concerned in such manner as the Commission considers will bring the proposal to the attention of electors in the administrative area to which the proposal relates.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 86 not moved.
Section 43, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 44
I move amendment No. 87:
In page 62, line 21, to delete “An Coimisiún Toghcháin” and substitute “the Commission”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 44, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 45 to 47, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 48
I move amendment No. 88:
In page 64, line 18, to delete “2 years” and substitute “12 months”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 48 agreed to.
Sections 49 to 51, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 52
Amendment No. 89 has been ruled out of order.
Amendment No. 89 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 90 and 91 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 90:
In page 65, line 20, to delete “two-thirds” and substitute “half”.
These amendments are about the removal of the mayor from office. Given that there could be a situation where a mayor is elected by the general public and that may well not coincide with who has a majority on a council or anything like that, I can understand a rationale for having a threshold for removal by elected members that is above 50%. What rationale was used to arrive at these thresholds? I am concerned about the 75% threshold being high. I ask the Minister of State to explain how those thresholds were arrived at and what the specific rationales on them are.
We have a slight problem with amendment No. 90 but we will support amendment No. 91. If somebody is elected to the office of mayor of Limerick, it will be a brave person who will vote to take that individual out if they are directly elected by the people. It would have to be somebody who was totally incompetent or corrupt for everyone to be willing to agree to that. I would not be too concerned about the threshold for councillors in particular, and two thirds is okay on that basis. We do not support amendment No. 90 on the basis that it would be a brave councillor to take out a good directly elected mayor unless they were doing something particularly wrong.
I agree with amendment No. 91 and it is important to bring it down to two thirds, which is still a protection for a mayor. We do not want a new mayor to be taken out just because different parties do not like that person or whatever. That would be a good balance.
The amendments proposed by Deputy Cian O'Callaghan relate to Part 7, which sets out the procedure applicable to any proposal to remove Limerick's directly elected mayor from office. Amendment No. 90 proposes an amendment to section 52 to reduce the number of councillors needed to sign a removal notice from two thirds to only half of the total number of elected members. It was originally proposed in the general scheme of the Bill that a removal notice would be signed by half of the total number. However, having regard to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage's pre-legislative scrutiny report, it was considered reasonable to increase the requirement to two thirds. As a result, I consider it appropriate to retain the committee's recommendation.
Similarly, amendment No. 91 proposes an amendment to section 54 that would reduce the number of councillors required to pass a removal resolution from three quarters to two thirds of the total number of elected members. Again, it proposes a lesser requirement. This provision reflects what was in the general scheme as to the voting requirement at this stage in the process. The scrutiny report did not contain a specific recommendation to alter this requirement. I understood this to mean that the committee considered that the existing position was appropriate.
On a more general note, the removal of a democratically elected mayor is a serious consideration, a matter to which Deputy Quinlivan made reference. In that context, the Bill sets out provisions for a legal mechanism to do so through a robust and fair three-tier process. There are various conditions to be met in initiating the action and achieving the outcome of removing the mayor. In order to ensure the removal is the democratic will of the elected council, I consider the current requirement in the Bill, for a removal notice to be signed by two thirds of the members and a removal resolution to be passed by three quarters of the members to be fitting. Consequently, I am not minded to accept these amendments.
I thank the Minister of State for his reply. I accept the rationale in respect of amendment No. 90. As I said earlier, the balance in this is important. We do not want a situation, in an over-politicised sense, where a slim majority in a council could remove someone with a direct mandate from the people. That could happen in any sense. Looking at some other jurisdictions outside of Ireland, you also do not want a situation where mayors have been involved in corruption and have a level of political support on their local authority. We do not want a sizable minority being able to keep a corrupt mayor in office if we arrived at a situation like that. Hopefully we would not be in such a situation but other countries have been. We are creating a role where there is a concentration of power in the hands of one individual. The opportunities around that increase but the risks increase as well. I have a concern that 75% could be too high but I do not want that threshold to be particularly low either. That is what I am flagging with amendment No. 91.
I oppose the amendment to reduce the threshold, given that we had specific discussions on it. Another part of that discussion was the point that Deputy Quinlivan touched on. We do not have this process of impeachment in our Irish system so we can only look to where it exists, and the system in the United States is probably the most obvious example. There are consequences for councillors for taking out a popular mayor. The difficulty is that this process does not give consequences to the councillors because the ultimate decision is made by the Minister. Am I correct in that?
I can go through the process.
My big fear is that, because of our multiparty system, a majority on the council might be made up of three or four parties. Some of those may be in government and some may not. It would be too easy to achieve 50% and that is why I would not propose it. It is still easy to achieve 33% and we could easily see tensions between coalition parties in governments playing out in a council, where councillors feel they have more freedom and may want to land a punch that cannot be done at national level. They do it with the freedom to vote for it while saying it is not them making the decision but the Minister.
I do not think we made a specific proposal but some of the discussions we had here suggested we should give the councillors the power in its entirety and let them deal with the consequences of it. The difficulty with what we have done is we have set up a process where councillors can have a good kick off national government by voting for or against an impeachment motion and do not have to deal with the consequences with the electorate because they will say the Minister has to deal with it in the end. One way of solving the issue was giving them the power in its entirety and letting them deal with the consequences of taking out a popular mayor. The problem with the current proposal is it ends up back on the Minister's desk and that becomes a politicised move, no matter what the Minister does.
I will add further clarity around the thinking about the three-quarters provision. Currently, if a CEO is to be removed, it requires three-quarters of the votes of the elected members in the chamber. The mayor will now take executive powers from the CEO; therefore, it fits in. That was the thinking at the time. Apart from setting a high bar, there is a basis for the three-quarters. It is because it applies to the CEO. The process is that two-thirds bring a motion and three-quarters must vote for it. It is then referred to the Minister, who sets up an independent review group. If that group finds the mayor should not be removed, that is the end of the matter. If it finds the mayor should be removed, it reports to the Minister, who has a decision to make whether to go with the recommendation or disagree with it. If the Minister disagrees, he or she is required to communicate to the Oireachtas, as well as the council, the reasons for it. A huge amount of work went into this with the Attorney General’s office, in terms of looking at it. It has come through a process.
The overall legislation is subject to review within the first three years but there is a logic to it. It is always about striking a balance. Nothing is perfect in life but it is about having a robust system based on a democratically elected mayor. It is new and sets a high bar but if a mayor is, going back to Deputy Quinlivan’s point, really out of order, the mechanisms are there to remove him or her, with various gates which, in the interests of fair play, are needed.
The process is a good one and is thought out. There are checks and balances to stop a group or majority of councillors in a council playing politics with this if they come from a different party from the mayor. My concern is a bad actor mayor and a cohort of councillors that reaches 26% could block any legitimate reasons for this process to be gone through.
I will withdraw amendment No. 90 but will press No. 91.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 52 agreed to.
Section 53 agreed to.
SECTION 54
I move amendment No. 91:
In page 67, line 1, to delete “three-quarters” and substitute “two-thirds”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 54 agreed to.
Sections 55 to 60, inclusive, agreed to.
SCHEDULE 1
I move amendment No. 92:
In page 73, line 18, to delete “and 229”.
Amendment No. 92 has already been discussed with No. 8. How stands that amendment?
If I recall correctly, the Minister of State said he would look at it and come back. It concerns the special purpose vehicles and the mayor's ability to enter into contracts. The council currently has that ability, but it is to change the balance between the elected council and the new mayor.
To clarify, I said at the time that both the mayor and the director general - the now CEO - based on the powers they have, will be able to enter into contracts. The mayor has powers to enter into contract in areas where he retains executive functions. The director general will have powers, as he has now, to enter into contracts that come under the area he retains. I also clarified at the time that the mayor will be who the designated activity companies, DACs, report to, rather than the current CEO. That is a significant change.
I recall now. I will not press the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Schedule 1 be a Schedule to the Bill".
We said yesterday we would go through Schedule 1 and this is the appropriate time to do so. It was given that the purpose of the Bill is to extend real powers to an elected mayor. Part 1 of Schedule 1 sets out powers that are to be retained by this - “speaker” is what it is in English but the legislation provides for a “Príomh Chomhairleoir”. I propose the Minister of State explain every provision concerning powers which should not vest in a mayor. I would have thought the public would expect in voting for an elected mayor that the mayor would at least enjoy all the powers an existing mayor enjoys; in fact, there are several legislative provisions which are excluded from the powers of the mayor. Not alone does the mayor not have much additional power – as I would argue, though the Minister of State may argue differently – but he or she clearly will not even enjoy the powers the current mayor enjoys. If the Minister of State is selling something to the people on the basis that they will have a more powerful mayor of Limerick, it is a reasonable expectation that mayor will at least have all the power the current mayor enjoys. Will the Minister of State go through each of these sections and let the committee know what they relate to and why these powers enjoyed by the mayor of Limerick should not be enjoyed by an elected mayor of Limerick? It is an unusual construct, I would argue.
If I may interrupt, in the context of Schedule 1, Deputy McNamara is asking the Minister of State to address the provisions in the third column?
Each and every one of them.
Yes, because I think we would all agree that they are powers that the current mayor enjoys but that the new mayor will not enjoy, notwithstanding the fact that the new mayor will supposedly be more powerful than the old one. The question, therefore, is why these powers will not be enjoyed by the new mayor. It is a valid request if we are to tease out this legislation in any meaningful way.
It is not unreasonable. It will take me a substantial amount of time to go through the provisions. We could provide them to the Deputy literally after the meeting in order that he can go through them prior to Report Stage. We have them all here, just-----
I have them here as well, but the difficulty with-----
I have them here but it will probably take me a good three quarters of an hour to read them all out to the Deputy.
With respect, I would argue that we are to set up an office, that it will be expensive, that we have had a referendum that cost money-----
I know that.
-----and that we are to put in office somebody whose predecessors enjoyed all these powers but who did not have a direct mandate, somebody who will go into office with a direct mandate, but these powers are being carved away from him or her.
It is quite a long and complicated Schedule.
I am in the Chair's hands on this.
It is-----
I would rather the Minister of State did not go through it. If Deputy McNamara wishes to highlight which particular provisions he is concerned about, I am sure the Minister of State will explain them, but to go through every single provision in detail is slightly unreasonable. There was an opportunity right up to this point to submit any concern in the shape of an amendment to Schedule 1 if the Deputy was concerned about any particular provision. I do not want to stymie the discussion, but I need to be reasonable about the committee's time.
I would argue that three quarters of an hour is not a lot of time in the context of having had a referendum whereby we will give somebody more powers and setting up and maintaining an office of príomh chomhairleoir which will cost quite a lot of money. As I said, I hope there will be more titles and derelict sites in Limerick because the number of derelict sites is decreasing and the number of titles is increasing. The powers that will be enjoyed by these people is what we are here to discuss. We will start with section 31(4)(a).
I ask the Minister of State to go through them briefly. He has offered a written note on this as well. It should be remembered that there were three or four weeks for anybody to look through this. It is not being presented to the Deputy just today; it has been in public-----
I will go through the ones I have concerns about. Section 31(4)(a)-----
Section 31(4)(a) provides that the cathaoirleach of a local authority takes precedence at all meetings of the local authority. All that will happen there is that the príomh chomhairleoir will now take up the position of cathaoirleach in that regard.
So the príomh chomhairleoir will enjoy precedence rather than the mayor, who has a directly-----
The príomh chomhairleoir is chair of the plenary sessions of the council.
Yes, so there will be a príomh chomhairleoir, who is indirectly elected, to chair the meeting and there will be a directly elected mayor, but the príomh chomhairleoir will enjoy precedence at the meeting-----
The mayor is accountable to the council, has executive powers and, basically, responds to the chamber in the same way as the CEO would. The mayor is also a member of the chamber. The recommendation of the implementation advisory group, IAG - and I went back and read the report last night-----
I am sorry if I put the Minister of State through that.
I will put it this way. I could see Deputy McNamara's abiding interest in the matter so I felt it was only appropriate that I give it the importance it deserved. I went back and read the IAG report. The IAG recommendation was - I am paraphrasing here - that, having considered the matter in depth, it believed there was a need for a separation of the roles at the plenary session of the meeting between the príomh chomhairleoir and the mayor for a number of reasons. One was that the mayor is answerable at an executive level to the chamber and that the mayor would report to the chamber like the CEO does at the moment. The IAG felt that it was better to separate those roles during the plenary sessions of the council meetings.
Again, my respectful view is that there will be, at best, this duplication of roles and, at worst, this competition between, effectively, an indirectly elected mayor and a directly elected mayor.
Yes, but may I humbly say-----
Yes, humbly or otherwise.
Effectively, this is a directly elected mayor with executive powers. The cathaoirleach does not have executive powers at the moment. The príomh chomhairleoir will not have executive powers. The directly elected mayor will come into the chamber and report to the chamber on all the areas under his or her executive powers. The meeting will continue to be chaired by the príomh chomhairleoir, who is now the cathaoirleach in the different role. The IAG made a recommendation, which we accepted, which related to the separation of powers.
Once again, the legislation will be subject to review within the first three years. Obviously, we need to see how effective this is and how it works. It has worked in other jurisdictions. It is in place in New York and many other locations. Many of the local authorities in the UK have it. Once again, this was the benefit of the IAG report. It brought in a range of stakeholders, and this is what was put forward. We took what it put forward seriously because we want something that will work smoothly. We are into an area of the unknown - we accept that - but there is precedent for this working elsewhere in other jurisdictions.
For Deputy McNamara's benefit, there was some discussion about this during pre-legislative scrutiny and, actually, our concern was about the title. We felt that maybe the term "deputy mayor" should have been applied and would be more easily understood. There was a very clear understanding during the discussion that, for the sake of the chamber and the members in the chamber, one would not want the mayor to control the discussion. It would be akin to a Minister chairing the Dáil instead of our having the benefit of the Ceann Comhairle, who chairs it more independently. There was a lot of discussion about the príomh chomhairleoir position from a public perception point of view, but we felt that they were different roles from the directly elected mayor. The other committee members might recall some of that discussion. We felt there was a need to have a person independent of the mayor to help the chamber hold him or her to account.
I have indicated that I will bring forward an amendment. I just do not see the rationale for the two separate offices. I do not think it will result in a workable solution. I hope I am proved wrong, but I fear that what we will have is a directly elected mayor with certain powers. Let us call him or her a príomh chomhairleoir but, essentially, he or she is elected in the same way as the current mayors are and has most of the powers of the current mayors, and there will be this tension between the two. Essentially, all it will achieve is to give even more power to the CEO, whose title will have changed but who enjoys a bit more power. It is a matter of the centralising of power in unelected civil servants, who are undoubtedly all very hard-working and very intelligent people but who do not enjoy a popular mandate from anybody to do anything. This is important if we are to maintain a belief in democracy and if people are to believe they can achieve change by going to a ballot box. As flawed as the manner in which elected representatives carry out their functions, it is important that certain functions are carried out by elected representatives. If somebody is to be given a mandate, it is important he or she has powers to implement that mandate, in my view, so I do not agree with the Minister of State. It goes back to the office of the príomh chomhairleoir or maintaining an indirectly elected mayor while at the same time having a directly elected mayor. I just do not see how that construct can work in reality, and I will bring forward an amendment-----
I would put the counterargument to the Deputy. Does he believe that the current CEO should chair the council chamber?
Ergo, then why would the directly elected mayor, who has executive powers, chair the chamber? There is a need for efficient operation. The mayor is to bring added value, not to replace the cathaoirleach. The mayor is to take on some of the measures but ultimately, we want someone to bring enormous added value in policy areas, be accountable to the chamber in the same way as the CEO and have executive powers.
It is within the Deputy's prerogative to bring forward amendments, but the Government is putting forward a particular approach. It is a completely new feature in Irish political life. I go back to the fact that we are in uncharted territory for Ireland. Nothing is perfect, but this model provides a good chance of the new office being sustainable in all facets.
If I am not mistaken, section 31(4) was not always in the Local Government Act 2001. It was introduced by amendment with the Local Government Reform Act 2014. Until that, there was no such provision, insofar as I am aware. Is it necessary to say one will have precedence over the other? If one will have precedence, I would argue it should be the person who has a direct mandate.
This only applies to meetings. The cathaoirleach will chair the meeting. It is as basic as that.
It does not say "chair", it says "shall take precedence at all meetings".
In essence, the cathaoirleach chairs the session.
If it said that the cathaoirleach will chair the meeting, I would not object, but "take precedence" clearly demonstrates a hierarchy.
I look forward to debating it with the Deputy on Report Stage.
On section 104(7)(a)-----
Which part is that?
It is in the Local Government Act 2001.
Where the chief executive incurs additional expenditure, under certain circumstances, the cathaoirleach must be informed immediately.
The Minister of State argues that-----
The príomh comhairleoir
Yes. The Minister of State has repeatedly said that the new elected mayor will have budgetary powers, as opposed to the unelected mayor, which will continue to be a post, but with a different name. The elected mayor will bring forward the budget.
Correct.
The directly elected mayor will presumably be responsible for budgetary matters.
Yet, if the chief executive incurs additional expenditure, they do not have to inform the elected mayor who-----
Will the Deputy please repeat that point? I did not quite catch it.
The Minister of State spoke about-----
It will now provide that where the mayor incurs additional expenditure under certain circumstances, the príomh comhairleoir must be informed.
Will the Minister of State say that again? What does it say at the moment?
It says that where the chief executive incurs additional expenditure under certain circumstances, the cathaoirleach must be informed immediately. The Deputy will appreciate that I am not a lawyer.
It is not that the CEO or the director general, as the post will become, will get additional power. The director general must inform the príomh comhairleoir who will inform the mayor.
There are two reasons for this.
If Deputy McNamara tables amendments in the normal way, we will look at them in great depth.
I am not a lawyer. I am not a barrister and at the end of the day, we are not in court of law.
The Deputy is probably putting questions to us on which we cannot give finer detail at the moment, but we will.
I was going to make the suggestion that the Minister of State has made. He said that it would take 45 minutes to read out all the functions that are linked to the legislative provisions in Part 1 and Part 2 on pages 72 and 73. If the Minister of State is agreeable to circulating them, it would be beneficial to us all and would perhaps allow us to get past this.
It would be helpful, but can we then submit amendments on Report Stage if we are not happy with them? I am afraid the clerks will say that was not discussed adequately on Committee Stage to allow-----
To be helpful to the committee, we are at an advanced stage in finalising Schedule 1. When it is finalised, it will be provided to the committee so that members can consider it and table any amendments on Report Stage. We will co-operate on that basis. We will never take away from members' entitlement to table any amendment they wish.
I appreciate the Minister of State’s and the Chair's approach. My only fear is that a clerk will say we did not tease out the Schedule because it was not finalised and therefore it was not discussed.
It is on the record Deputy McNamara. If you wish-----
It has happened to me before.
We have agreed that the Minister of State will issue the committee with a list of the provisions that are set out.
It is the functions, not only the provisions.
It will be a list of what is in Schedule 1 so that members can go through it in great depth.
To be helpful, if the Deputy wants to be sure to be sure, I would have thought that a man of Deputy McNamara’s experience could say that he is putting on record that he intends to bring forward amendments on Schedule 1 on Report Stage.
I certainly do not have anything like the Minister of State's experience. To be clear, it relates to Part 1 and Part 2 of Schedule 1. I reserve the right to bring forward amendments as do other members of the committee.
That is noted.
I thank the Minister of State and the Chair. That is very useful.
I always try to be helpful to colleagues.
Question put and agreed to.
SCHEDULE 2
I move amendment No. 93:
In page 79, line 19, to delete “An Coimisiún Toghcháin” and substitute “the Commission”.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
SCHEDULE 3
I move amendment No. 94:
In page 130, to delete lines 21 to 37.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 95:
In page 143, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:
“
|
(f) the following subsection were inserted after subsection (9): “(10) The director general of Limerick City and County Council shall consult with the Mayor of Limerick regarding a delegation made under this section to ensure that each delegated function is properly staffed in pursuit of the policy priorities of the Mayor of Limerick.”. |
".
The Minister of State was not in favour revisiting this.
In that case, I press amendment No. 95.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 96:
In page 143, between lines 43 and 44, to insert the following:
"
|
30. |
Section 166 |
Section shall apply as if the following definition were inserted: “ ‘special adviser to the Mayor of Limerick’ means the special adviser to the Mayor of Limerick appointed under section 19 of the Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) Act 2023;”. |
".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 97:
In page 144, to delete lines 10 to 13 and substitute the following:
"
|
(a) the director general of Limerick City and County Council, in case the matter relates to any employee (other than the director general of Limerick City and County Council or the special adviser to the Mayor of Limerick), (aa) the Mayor of Limerick and the director general of Limerick City and County Council, in case the matter relates to the special adviser to the Mayor of Limerick, |
".
Amendment agreed to
I move amendment No. 98:
In page 146, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following:
"
|
33. |
Section 179 |
Section shall, in addition to applying to the director general by virtue of subsection (3) of section 26, apply as if— (a) in subsection (2)— (i) “subject to paragraph (ba),” were inserted before “where he or she as an employee” in paragraph (b), and (ii) the following paragraph were inserted after paragraph (b): “(ba) where he or she as the special adviser to the Mayor of Limerick is concerned with the matter in the course of his or her duties, he or she shall disclose in writing to the Mayor of Limerick and the director general of Limerick City and County Council the nature of his or her interest or the fact of a connected person’s interest and comply with any directions the Mayor of Limerick may give him or her in relation to the matter;”, and (b) in subsection (3), “subsection (2) (b), (2)(ba) or (2)(c)” were substituted for “subsection (2)(b) or (2)(c)”. |
".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 99:
In page 147, to delete lines 23 to 31 and substitute the following:
"
|
(iiia) the special adviser to the Mayor of Limerick, it shall be furnished to the Mayor of Limerick and the director general of Limerick City and County Council, (iv) any employee of Limerick City and County Council (other than the director general of Limerick City and County Council or the special adviser to the Mayor of Limerick), it shall be furnished to the director general of Limerick City and County Council, and |
".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 100:
In page 147, to delete lines 38 to 40 and substitute the following:
“
|
(b) in subsection (4)— (i) “, (ia)” were inserted after “subparagraph (i)” in paragraph (a), (ii) the following paragraph were inserted after paragraph (a): “(aa) Where a report referred to in subparagraph (iiia) of subsection (3)(a) is furnished to a local authority it shall be considered by the Mayor of Limerick, who shall decide on such action to be taken as may be considered appropriate in all the circumstances including, notwithstanding section 19(7) of the Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) Act 2023, termination of appointment of the special adviser concerned.”, and (iii) the following paragraph were inserted after paragraph (c): “(ca) The Mayor of Limerick shall inform the elected council of the result of a consideration under paragraph (aa).”. |
".
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
TITLE
Question proposed: "That the Title be the Title to the Bill."
I thank the officials for their phenomenal work on this ground-breaking legislation. I thank members for their engagement and, in particular, the Cathaoirleach for his stewardship.
I will take this opportunity to advise the committee of a number of amendments that I propose to introduce on Report Stage. The structure of the Bill provides that, where a mayor takes up office, he or she will be responsible for the executive functions of Limerick City and County Council, as set out in the Local Government Acts and other enactments. However, a range of functions will remain with the director general, which we have just discussed. They relate to staffing and human resources, the role of Accounting Officer, the administration of schemes and grants, enforcement, etc. These functions are listed in Part 2 of Schedule 1. Given the complexity and wide-ranging nature of the work involved on a cross-departmental basis to examine all legislative provisions and identify the relevant functions that are appropriate to the director general, the full range is not fully reflected in Schedule 1, as published. This work is at an advanced stage, though, and I will table the necessary amendments to update the Schedule on Report Stage. I have given a commitment that we will provide them in advance to members to enable them to be considered in depth.
There will be a need to table two minor technical consequential amendments to the Bill on Report Stage. In addition, I intend to table amendments relating to the fresh start principle, which is provided for under the Affordable Housing Act 2021. It is intended to clarify the fresh start principle and its application by amending the Act to confirm that a fresh start event will reset a person’s status to first-time buyer after a divorce, separation, bankruptcy or insolvency regardless of the number of properties the person owned previously, thus ensuring that a person who once owned another home would not be excluded under the fresh start principle.
My Department has recently become aware that there may have been a technical error at the time section 160 of the Local Government Act 2001 was amended by section 61(1) of the Public Service Management (Recruitment and Appointments) Act 2004. The amendment changed the original body with which there was a requirement for the Minister to consult when declaring qualifications for certain local government roles from the Local Appointments Commission to the Commission for Public Service Appointments but it should, in fact, have been changed to the Public Appointments Service. Since 2004, consultation has inadvertently been taking place with the Public Appointments Service. It is intended to amend the Local Government Act to reflect the consultation practice that has been in operation to ensure the validity of various declarations, which will not be held to be invalid by reason only of the fact that consultations with the Commission for Public Service Appointments did not take place. It is also intended to include a specific provision setting out that this amendment will not affect any extant legal case.
It would be helpful if the Minister of State provided the committee with that written note.
I will.
Question put and agreed to.
May I thank the committee's staff?
We are coming to that. I thank the Minister of State for his engagement and his officials for their assistance to the committee and himself. I thank the clerk to the committee and the secretariat. I also thank the Bills Office, which made this foolproof for us and made us look good. I thank members for their engagement. We look forward to seeing what is significant legislation for local democracy. I pay credit to the people of Limerick for passing the plebiscite. I hope that what we provide for them in the shape of a directly elected mayor lives up to that expectation.
This is an historic moment. It is about ensuring that we get legislation that is fit and robust, particularly for the people of Limerick. I hope that it has wider applications across Ireland.
Bill reported with amendments.