Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

On Senator Gavan's amendment No. 11, these are reasonable and appropriate powers ensuring it is not just a place to visit but a place where people can live and work for a wage that allows them to live. There are a few areas where I will have complementary amendments. The public realm is a key aspect of what people expect from a mayor. I have certain amendments in relation to the functions which seek to ensure that public space is part of what the mayor delivers.

Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 seek to address a wide, principled issue, which is that we do not want this to fail or to be seen as another disappointment or false start for local democracy. At a time when there is disaffection with democracy in many parts of Europe, we want to engage people with the subsidiarity principle of meaningful decisions as close as possible to them and we want people to have accountability and a say in those decisions. In the massive curtailment of the powers of the mayor proposed in this Bill as it is set out, unfortunately, it is a massive curtailment of the voice of the people of Limerick. It is not simply an individual curtailed by the lack of ambition in the mayoral powers, but all the people of Limerick when they go out to vote because they like the ideas, vision or proposals mayoral candidates put forward. They come up against the obstacle that, even though they made that decision and voted because they liked that vision, huge areas are off limits and still outside their democratic reach.That is a signal that it sends. It is a signal that has been very poorly sent through the excessive centralising of powers towards chief executives and away from elected council members, as I discussed earlier, which is a real, significant problem identified at European level in terms of Ireland's local democracy. I worry that we are making the same mistake again.

We have a seven or eight-page Schedule to this Bill listing all the areas in which powers we might expect the mayor to have will, in fact, be vested with the director general, the former chief executive. It is too long. I am going to have a long set of amendments later where I specifically identify some areas in respect of which it is very problematic that they be given to a director general who is, at the end of the day, an unelected official, and not to an elected and accountable person such as a mayor. In many of these, it is not just sections, it is the whole Act. Waste management was identified by Senator Gavan as an area in which there is lively and vibrant debate around re-municipalisation and different approaches. It has huge implications in terms of the circular economy. It has significant environmental implications. Many municipalities have actually decided to move back towards re-municipalisation or at least towards greater regulation at local level. That, by the way, is what has led to the end of illegal dumping, when you actually have proper public services being delivered in terms of waste. This is an issue, we know is current, I have heard raised by many people here in the Chamber. However, right now, the whole Waste Management Act sits with the director general, with the chief executive, and it is explicitly taken away from the powers of a mayor even though it may be part of what people care about in Limerick, and a factor in who and what they vote for. It is just one example. As I said, it is one line among eight pages of areas that are powers still given to the director general and not to the mayor.

While I am going to come to many of the individual examples later, amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are trying to deal with the general problem. Areas listed in the Schedule include planning, housing, animal welfare and national monuments. Surely the mayor may have something to contribute in respect of national monuments that are within Limerick, and there are indeed many significant monuments and heritage sites. Also included are historic and archaeological heritage and waste management. All of these are areas that people might reasonably expect to see, and internationally they are the kinds of areas in which we see mayors having opinions, mayors taking action. These are areas that are excluded currently. If we want mayors who have the ability to enact meaningful change and to meaningfully reflect the will, ideas, democratic desires of the people of Limerick, then we cannot continue to have so much power sitting with an unelected chief executive or director general.

I have later amendments around specific areas but amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are about the general principle. We need a way whereby items that are currently in this eight-page Schedule can be moved off it. There needs to be at least some mechanism. This to me smacks of an excess of conservatism and caution at the moment. It seems like literally almost any act that you could find, that might have any power, that might effect anything, got stuck in the Schedule. It is going to become an obstacle to the effective working of the office of mayor. As I stated earlier, I think that is going to become evident a lot earlier than two or three years' time. We are going to come up against the reality of areas that are clearly relevant being out of reach of action by the mayor.My amendments Nos. 9 and 10 would introduce a power whereby the functions conferred on the director general in the Schedule could be removed from the Schedule and conferred on the mayor by resolution of the elected council. I am not saying all functions should be given to the mayor but that there should be a mechanism whereby functions can be moved to the mayor and by which the elected council – the other part of the diverse democratic expression of wishes and views of the people of Limerick – can remove a power from the Schedule to transfer it from the director general back to the mayor. That is a very reasonable measure. It is a safety net. I am not simply saying all the functions should be given to the mayor but that there should be a mechanism whereby relevant powers can be transferred to the appropriate person, namely the mayor.

Amendment No. 9 simply states functions could be conferred by a resolution of the elected council. I have tried to set a higher bar in amendment No. 10 because there is, perhaps, a fear regarding how the powers might be used. I have set the bar of a two-thirds majority. Essentially, this requirement would mean one would need not only the support of whatever party may happen to have a majority in the council but also the cross-party support of the many and diverse members, elected by different people across Limerick for different reasons, for the idea that, at a given time, a particular power should sit with the mayor rather than the director general. That is a very reasonable proposal. The two-thirds majority entails a higher bar. I urge the Minister of State to accept the amendment because there is currently no mechanism for getting anything off the Schedule. If a mayor wishes to do something relevant concerning, say, archaeological heritage, such as a discovery near St. John's Castle, he or she will not have the power to act on it. However, if the Minister of State accepts my amendment, sections of the archaeology and history legislation could be opened up for mayoral action with the agreement of a majority of councillors. This is a really reasonable proposal and provides quite a good safety net. It would save us from having to accept the long set of amendments we will get to in which I try to individually remove provisions from the Schedule-----