Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

When we debated a motion in the Dáil to allow these amendments through, one of the concerns a number of us raised was that we only received the amendments the previous evening. While the Minister of State had signalled his intention to bring them forward, it still gave us little time to properly scrutinise and get our heads round them. I acknowledge that he made time for us today to go through some of them but given that we were only able to ask for that last night and schedule it today, we did not have a great deal of time. That is no criticism of those seated on the other side of the room but it begs a question. I will repeat some of these points when we deal with the next set of amendments because it is even more substantial. Substantial changes to local government are being proposed by way of amendment with limited scrutiny at almost 9 p.m. in the middle of a bunch of other matters. I am on the same side as the Minister of State on this in the sense that I am a supporter of directly elected mayors and if the powers and the relationships between those offices and the other structures of local government are correct, I would encourage people to vote for it, but the Government is making it difficult for us.

The reason I say that is I was part of the mayoral reform in Dublin when the former Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Mr. Hogan, proposed a plebiscite in Dublin for a directly elected mayor. Councillors from the four Dublin local authorities were asked to debate and vote on this and if all four local authorities voted in favour of the plebiscite, we would have it. The difficulty was we were having that discussion in a vacuum. We had no idea what the powers would be. We had no idea whether powers would be sucked upwards from the local authorities into the office of directly elected mayor and whether powers would be devolved from Government agencies, Departments, etc. While three of the local authorities, including mine in south Dublin, voted in favour of the plebiscite despite the fact that we did not know, the major problem in Fingal County Council was that in the absence of any certainty, the local authority was not willing to allow the proposal to go forward. The Minister of State will tell the committee, as he did earlier, that next year we will deal with the more substantive issues of powers and relationships, etc., but that legislation will not be passed before these plebiscites. The Government might be able to say what it would like to do if the plebiscite passes and if it gets the legislation through. That involves many ifs and buts. That is as sure way to lose a plebiscite or, certainly, a way to confuse the public and make it difficult for the public to engage with the issue. I am on the Minister of State's side on the principle of this but I am genuinely concern about the sequencing of it.

Given that the Minister of State is telling us that if the legislation goes through and the plebiscites pass and the people in the respective areas support the proposition, it could be up to two years before he publishes a report to set out the legislation, does that mean the timeline for directly elected mayors is subject to the passing of a plebiscite for the local government elections, not next year but subsequently? If that is the case, why are we rushing what essentially is separate legislation in amendments to this Bill?

I also have some minor concerns on which I may table amendments on Report Stage. I would much prefer if the Minister of State would examine them because if he tables amendments in this regard, they are more likely to pass.

Without opening up the Galway debate because we will have that afterwards, it is presumptuous the way Galway is inserted in this. I understand there will be a plebiscite in the two local authority areas as they are currently constituted but if, for example, the good people of Galway city and county in their wisdom at a later stage decide to follow the Cork model and instead of a merger opt for a boundary extension, although I do not say the Minister of State would propose that, then the plebiscite in May of next year will not be valid for what the new enlarged Galway local authority. That is a matter for folks in Galway to go through in detail. It is none of my business as I do not represent the area but it is a significant problem under section 32.

Section 33, which I raised at the briefing earlier, relates to the information to be provided. We are aware of the difficulty we have in referenda. An independent Referendum Commission has been set up because of the difficulties relating to Government bodies issuing information on referenda. It is all very well to state that the local authority, following regulations from the Minister, will provide factual information but let us wait to see when we have the plebiscites whether facts become opinions and opinions become differences. I am concerned that those regulations might not require sufficient independence in the presentation of the information that we are accustomed to in referenda. That could just be a genuine difficulty.

I do not understand the timeline in section 37. Why two years? Why not six months after the passing of the plebiscite? If, for example, the good people of Cork or Limerick vote in favour of this, why wait two years? Why not, within a relatively short period, bring forward at least the Government's outline proposals?

I have a concern about costs under the new section 38. We are being asked to impose the costs of these plebiscites on the local authority but we do not know the costs. I raised this with the officials, who stated that they had some indicative costings. If they could share these with the committee, that would be good. For example, a cash-strapped local authority that has passed its estimates might have to take a decision to limit the distribution of material to fit the budget available to it when it comes to the plebiscite next year, and that could impact on the overall turnout whereas if the local authority were to decide to send literature to every house in the city or county and place new advertisements in the newspapers, the costs will become significant. For some of the smaller local authorities, €20,000 can become €50,000 or €100,000, and while I appreciate these plebiscites will be carried out on the day of the local and European elections in order that the count and related costs will be covered, even the dissemination of information could involve a significant cost. Does that mean, for example, if we agree the amendment to section 38, that Galway city or Limerick city and county councils must revise their estimates, even to find €20,000, €50,000, €80,000 or €100,000, depending on the cost? If the Minister of State can reassure us on his estimations of the cost, I would be grateful.

It is unclear to me why Dublin is not included. I do not seek an amendment to include Dublin because there is a set of complexities in Dublin but many parties, including my own, would support such a proposal if the configuration is correct,.

My party will not oppose this amendment, although I will, subject to the replies, at least have recorded my opposition to the proposed new section 38. As somebody who would like to enthusiastically support this, the Minister of State is making it difficult for us. If he is making it difficult for us, the debate in the public arena will be even more difficult for much of the electorate when it comes to the plebiscite.