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

I propose to address amendments Nos. 24 to 28, inclusive, as they have been grouped for discussion. They relate to sections 30 and 31 of the Bill and the requirement on the mayor to establish the consultative forum and to prepare and publish a mayoral programme for his or her term.

Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 relate to section 30 of the Bill, which provides for the establishment of the Limerick mayoral and government consultative forum to facilitate engagement between the mayor and national government. As I said on Committee Stage, I believe the forum will play a decisive role in supporting the office of mayor, bringing the added value of having a directly elected mayor to the people of Limerick. It is a statutory body, which should not be lost.

The amendment in the name of Deputy Quinlivan would increase the frequency and number of meetings of the consultative forum, obliging it to meet three times a year, up from twice a year. The amendment in the name of Deputy Bacik, proposed by Deputy Sherlock, would oblige the forum to meet four times a year. I cannot at this time see the benefit of placing a statutory requirement on the forum to meet more frequently than already provided for. I specifically included in section 30(8) that in addition to the two meetings the forum must hold, it shall also hold as many other meetings "as may be necessary for the due performance of its functions". Additional meetings can be requested by either party, that is, by the Government or by the mayor. That is important.

I believe that the blend of a statutory minimum number of meetings, which are plenary sessions that will happen twice a year within five or seven months because I did not want to be prescriptive by requiring them to happen every six months, with the facility to have as many additional meetings as necessary, is the right balance. The minimum number of meetings brings focus and consistency, while the option of further meetings brings flexibility in the performance of its operation. It should not be lost that I have provided for that forum to have a secretariat because I believe it is important. As the existing arrangements represent a good combination for the meeting arrangements, I cannot accept these amendments. I do, however, understand the spirit in which they are proposed. I hope I have provided for the issue in substance within the section.

Amendment No. 26 would oblige the mayor to obtain the approval of the elected council for the mayoral programme. Amendment No. 27 would oblige the mayor in addition to considering any comments or observations of the council, to also consider any potential amendments to the mayoral programme. Considering comments or observations from elected members may well give rise to the mayor amending the mayoral programme if he or she wishes to do so, I would hope there would be a collaborative approach. It is hugely important that the mayor works with the director general and the council members. I have noted that is the common denominator in other jurisdictions where such a system has worked.

There are cases in the UK at the moment where local authorities are reversing their decision to have directly elected mayors. I am conscious that we have to get this right. As I noted when the issue was discussed on Committee Stage, I do not see what advantage there could be to adding a reference to potential amendments. I do not consider that the mayoral programme should be subject to the approval of the council. Why am I saying that? I appreciate that the members of the council have been democratically elected. However, the directly elected mayor will have placed his or her manifesto before the people of Limerick and his or her election will have been based on the commitments in that manifesto. The mayoral programme must reflect that and must be allowed to reflect that.

The normal budget will be brought by the mayor to the elected members. That budget is unaffected by the mayor. The mayor will get additional direct funding from the Government to fund the mayoral programme based on his or her manifesto. We have already provided funding for that for next year. Certainly the elected members will have an important role in bringing the benefits of their knowledge and expertise to the feedback they give to the mayor but I will not go as far as to provide that they can seek to amend the manifesto for which the people have voted. We must always go back to the core of what is involved here. It is based on the democratic wish of the people. It is not in any way impacting on the budget that the members have at the moment. This is an additional budget that the mayor is bringing. I do not accept that this dilutes the role of councillors. Rather, all parties in the chamber have an important role in the strengthening of local democracy. In preparing the mayoral programme members have regard to the statutory obligations of the council, Government policy and the views of the elected councillors. The provisions as they currently are in the Bill are correct.

Amendment No. 28 would require the mayor to undertake a public consultation before finalising the mayoral programme. As the programme has been voted on by the people of Limerick based on the election manifesto, I must again make the point that I regard the public consultation to have already taken place in the most democratic way possible by way of an election. On a separate point, it is somewhat of a contradiction to provide for a non-statutory public consultation in legislation. That is just a technical legal point.

Finally, the Bill provides for a Limerick mayoral advisory and implementation committee with the function of assisting the mayor in the preparation of the mayoral programme. The forum can ensure that any further engagement the mayor thinks is required can take place. Once again, that is a statutory forum. The mayor can bring all stakeholders together, something for which we have all been calling. It will provide added value. For these reasons, I cannot accept these amendments although I do not question the genuineness of the intent behind them.

See this speech in context