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

Amendments Nos. 29 to 31, inclusive, tabled by Deputies Quinlivan and Bacik, all relate to section 32 of the Bill to establish the Limerick mayoral advisory and implementation committee.

Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 seek changes to how councillors will be appointed to the committee. A key role of this committee, which the mayor will chair, will be to support the mayor in preparing the implementation of the mayoral programme. It will work with the mayor to drive progress in economic, tourist, social and cultural matters, initiatives to sustain employment, co-ordinating initiative services, and funding to support rural areas and measures concerned with town regeneration. It is appropriate the mayor should be the person to appoint committee members, including elected members and representatives from nominating bodies, as appropriate.

The Deputies previously expressed concern at committee hearings that the mayor may simply select councillors from his or her own party. First, it cannot be assumed that the successful candidate will be a member of a political party. Second, and more important, it is clearly in the mayor's own interest to have a broad representation on this committee. It goes back to the same point all the time. Looking at all the examples, if the mayor does not work with people, it does not work. We have to have that element as well. It is clear that the mayor must have broad representation on this committee, as it is key to the success of his or her term as mayor. I do not agree that the amendment constraining the mayor in this way is proportionate so I cannot accept these amendments. It is a balancing act. On balance, it is constraining the mayor. It is about the mayoral programme, based on the mayor's democratic mandate. I am not in any way impacting on the reserve functions of councillors.

Amendment No. 31 proposes a range of suggestions for the type of nominating body the mayor could approach to seek a nomination for membership of the committee. Nominees being members drawn from the suggested sectors of business, trade unions, community and voluntary organisations would certainly be a positive thing. The generality of the provision, as currently drafted, means there is no obstacle to the mayor asking these or any other sectors to nominate a person to the committee. Once again, therefore, on balance, I do not see the need for the amendment.

Amendment No. 32 would prevent the mayor from dissolving his or her own committees or subcommittees unless he or she has the approval of elected members of the council, but these will be set up by the mayor. That is the reason they will happen. They will not happen on the suggestion of the local authority but will be set up because the mayor will set them up. Section 32 quite rightly gives the mayor the power to establish and assemble the members of committees but this amendment would mean the mayor could not disband the committees or subcommittees without councillors approving it. How could there be a situation where the mayor sets up something but has to go to someone else to disband it? All I can say is it is for the mayor to decide how the mayoral committee should be stood up or stood down. On that basis, I cannot accept the amendment.

I know all the amendments are being put forward with the best of intentions. When I looked at the legislation, however, I wanted to ensure the mayor will have a democratic mandate. The mayor will obviously be judged not only by the electorate but councillors as well. There are a lot of checks and balances in the legislation. On the basis of what I said, I cannot accept these amendments.

See this speech in context