Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the amendments to section 17, the difficulty is that the Minister proposes the deletion of section 17 and its replacement by other sections which deal with many of those issues elsewhere. If it is to be deleted, there is not much point in amending it.

My amendments Nos. 46, 47 and 49 are related and 49 and 48 are quite similar in some respects. In all of my contributions on the Bill, I have been conscious to ensure that both local authorities are as financially sustainable as possible. There is a strong belief in Cork County Council that there needs to be a commitment to an ongoing settlement which should not disappear after ten or 15 years. The position after that period need not be as rigid as was the case up to that point but it is fair that there be an ongoing commitment subject to review and negotiation. A deadline should not be set in that regard.

There is a view that the base amount - the component of the financial settlement that is outside the transfer of assets, offsetting of liabilities, development contributions and so on - that is being paid from the city to the council should be index linked up and down. The Bill allows for a level of flexibility in that regard, so not being able to rely on a base amount could make life difficult for the county council.

There is also a view that some degree of certainty is required around the frequency of payments, which is the basis for amendment No. 49 and Deputy Michael Collins's amendment No. 48. The financial settlement should be paid on an advance monthly scheduled basis so that the county council can account for it on a frequent basis.

My amendment No. 53 is a compromise proposal. Currently, the Bill provides for a review "not later than 3 years" after the first making of a financial settlement. The county council fears that the review might start much earlier than the three-year mark, so I have proposed that it should start exactly three years after the transition and be completed within six months. There has been some suggestion that the second review should be pushed out beyond ten years, but that is not right, as ten years is a reasonable interval. Amendment No. 53 is a fair compromise.

Amendment No. 56 addresses a similar point to one I have already made. There should be some level of reliance on revising and renegotiating.

The amendments I am tabling in this grouping all relate to section 17. The Minister of State is proposing to do things differently. I can probably live with that and return to these matters on Report Stage, but I would like some assurances on the general points that I have made before I consider what position to take.

A point has been made about subsection (6) of amendment No. 69. This provision appears in a few places. I understand that there may be a concern about two local authorities ending up on opposite sides in court to settle their financial differences. In many of the amendments, there seems to be an effort to address that concern by way of ministerial intervention, reference to the oversight group and so on. However, a number of the Bill's provisions, including the end of subsection (6), retain that option. It reads: "that contribution or that part of the contribution that remains unpaid shall be recoverable by the city council in any court of competent jurisdiction as a simple contract debt." Ministerial intervention has been provided for, but is it necessary to include a provision that still anticipates both local authorities being against each other in a courtroom? One would hope that they would not end up in that situation.

My apologies, Chairman, but I will only make two further points, the first of which is on the proposed section 20(1) in amendment No. 69. I am concerned by the fact that the county council will have until April 2020 to make a payment in respect of 2019. If the city council is thin on finance at the end of 2019 for the areas that are being transitioned, will it have to wait until April 2020 to receive payment in respect of them? Obviously, we hope that the county council would pay before then, but it is still being given that latitude. I have a concern in that regard, as I am not sure it is wise.

I wish to clarify something regarding amendment No. 72. The new section 23(4) relates in part to development contributions. Is it still the case that development contributions that relate to developments in the transition areas will go to the city council?