Kieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I propose to address amendments Nos. 2 to 5, inclusive, together as they have been grouped for discussion. They relate to section 7 of the Bill, which provides a mechanism to review the operation of the legislation after a three year period. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 propose to reduce the period within which a review should be conducted by the Minister after the office of the mayor is established, from three years to two years. I acknowledge the intention behind Deputy Quinlivan’s amendments. Once the office of mayor is established and the mayor is in situfor an appropriate period of time, there will be a need to review the operation and effectiveness of this novel and historic legislation. I think we all agree with that. That is already in the legislation, in terms of its principle.

It comes down to the question of what is the appropriate time to hold the review and a number of factors need to be considered. The independent advisory group report recommended the review should take place at the end of the third year of the mayoral term to enable the enactment of any legislative changes required and reflect the assignment of any new functions in advance of the next mayoral election. The Bill is consistent with that approach. The pre-legislative scrutiny report suggested a review after a period of one year, which is a short time. The proposal in the amendment for a review after two years is still relatively short.

It is important that adequate time is provided to allow for the embedding and integration of the new structures for Limerick City and County Council provided for in the Bill. This would include, for example, the office of mayor itself, the progression of the mayoral programme and the operation of the Limerick mayoral advisory and implementation committee and so on.

On balance, I consider that a three-year period is an appropriate period for the holding of a review. I note that nothing would prevent a review being carried out in advance of that. As the legislation is constructed, it can take place prior to the end of a three-year period. It would either be completed three months after the three-year period or at an earlier time.

I should also mention the importance of the role of the Limerick mayoral and government consultative forum which will facilitate engagement between the mayor and national government. It will also review and advise on how the new structures are operating. This will feed into any review of the legislation.

I will outline the context for Deputy Quinlivan. If a mayor goes in, let us say, in June of next year, he or she would bring in two budgets at the end of that year. There would be a budget for one year, 2025. It is just to give that requisite time period. I know the principle Deputy Quinlivan is putting forward but we are looking at the logistics of it. The review can happen earlier but it does allow for a period of time under the legislation in line with the recommendation of Tim O'Connor's advisory group.

I will now turn to amendments Nos. 4 and 5 from my Limerick colleague, Deputy Leddin, which propose amendments to section 7(2). Subsection (2) sets out that when undertaking the review of the legislation, the Minister shall consult the mayor, the forum, the council and any other person the Minister considers appropriate. Amendment No. 4 proposes that instead of consulting the council, the Minister should consult each member individually. As the existing provision enables the consultation with both the council and any person the Minister considers appropriate, we believe this amendment is unnecessary. I am also of the view that the council should act in a collective fashion when feeding into such a review. The council chamber is about the collective.

Separately, the effect of amendment No. 5 is that the Minister shall consult "individuals with knowledge of, or expertise in, the administration of local government in Ireland and internationally" as part of the review. The proposed amendment is very broad and essentially places a statutory obligation on the Minister to consult what is an unknown and potentially vast number of such persons. Meeting such a statutory obligation could prove to be impossible and indeed impractical. While I appreciate the amendment is well-intentioned, I cannot accept it. For that reason, I am proposing that a review can happen in less than three years, as a practical measure. We feel that while, in fairness, Deputy Leddin's amendment is well-intentioned, the concern is the practical implications for us. The most important point is that there is a review mechanism in the Bill. The review is done through the implementation group and it gives flexibility to the Minister and the implementation group with regard to the review.