Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment number 45:

In page 80, line 36, after “discussion)” to insert “, receiving 75 per cent support of members present,”.

I am seeking to protect the process in the case where someone is disrupting a council meeting. Sometimes councillors can disrupt council meetings. However, that is not the norm. There may be some problem areas with this. We want to have mechanisms to protect the elected members in order that they can come in and do their business and that the work of the council can be carried out on a monthly basis. The monthly meeting is very important for doing that. Councillors should be able to come in and make their contribution and decisions about their areas. We do not want meetings held by people playing to the gallery or holding up meetings for their own reasons or disrupting the work of the council unnecessarily.

I am also keen to ensure people are not excluded for frivolous reasons. Let us suppose a chair is in bad humour or somewhat cross on a given day and strikes the hammer on the table rashly and orders someone outside the chamber.

This is an effort to protect members and the reason I suggested a figure of 75% is that a three quarters majority, rather than a simple majority, gives some balance in this regard. In other words, the situation should not arise whereby the major group on the council - which may not be one of the dominant parties but could be a combination of a couple of smaller parties - for its own reasons could seek to exclude anyone, because the chairperson will be the man or woman of that group. That is how local government works, as all Members are aware. The situation should not arise whereby the council's cathaoirleach or mayor can exclude someone unfairly. I have suggested a majority of 75%, which strikes the correct balance. When 75% of a council agree that someone is being obstructive, is disrupting the council's business or is preventing the councillors from doing their work, it is time to remove that person. However, I believe specifying a simple majority is a dangerous step to take.

See this speech in context