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

Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 in the names of Sinn Féin Senators Gavan, Warfield and Boylan are similar to the amendments tabled in the Dáil. They propose to reduce the review period for this Bill, when enacted, from three years after the office of the mayor is established to two years.I fully agree that the operation and effectiveness of the legislation should be subject to a review when a mayor has beenin situ for a period of time. The Bill provides for such a review.

As I said in the Dáil, then comes the question of what is a reasonable period of time to allow for bedding down of a new structure. The report of the implementation advisory group recommended a review at the end of the third year of the mayoral term. It was chaired by Tim O’Connor and, by common census, did a serious body of work. Even in that context, it recommended three years. Looking at the various points put across, the pre-legislative scrutiny report from the Oireachtas joint committee on housing suggested a review after a period of only one year. Indeed, a review after two years is still a relatively short period. It is important that enough time be given to allow the integration of these new arrangements in Limerick City and County Council.

I remain convinced that a three-year period is the proper time period for a review. It is balanced. In the meantime, the Limerick mayoral and government consultative forum will also review and advise on how the new structures are operating. There is nothing to stop a review. A Minister - whoever that is - or the Government could commence a review before the two-year period. It may arise during the consultative interaction between the mayor and the Government and the Ministers of the day that they push to see a review earlier. The thing is we learned a lot from the implementation advisory group. If the situation arose that we needed someone, such as the implementation group, to do a further body of work, we want to allow sufficient time.

The one thing I have learned during this process is that we want something that reflects the wishes of the people. It is the one thing I have been true to in the legislation. When I came in and was starting a body of work, my reference point was the people and what was put to the people, and what was put to the people is fully reflected in legislation. One may like to see more powers to the mayor but this is what the people voted on democratically and as a democrat I have to abide by that wish.

I remain convinced that three years, on balance, is the best time period. However, there is nothing to prevent it happening before the two-year period. There is a big difference between two and three years. It is not a huge length of time but it gives that bedding down period for anyone coming into the office. There is no point in us doing a review too early because there would not be value to it, and it cannot be done too late either. A review should be done in the third year.

With that, I cannot accept the Senator’s amendment in this area.

Amendment No. 6 from the civil engagement group proposes to narrow the consultation.