John Paul Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I was not trying to be picky with the figures but the numbers were not adding up. Numbers often do not add up and perhaps that is at the heart of this discussion.

In reply to Deputy O'Dowd, the amendments were circulated on Monday evening. Other Deputies have stated that more time would be desirable but it was firmly indicated on Second Stage that there would be amendments in respect of the plebiscite and on urban area committees. The plebiscite chunk of amendments concern the actual structure of how a plebiscite would run and the subsequent actions the Minister of the day might take. It would be inappropriate to spell out what powers the directly elected mayor might have.

In early 2019, perhaps in February of that year, the Government intends to consider a memo, though it has not been drafted yet. I suggest we have either a meeting of the joint committee or statements in the Dáil and Seanad. I am perfectly prepared to do this for as many hours as necessary because there is not as much to divide parties on the issue of direct election as there is on other issues. It would be good to have this well in advance of when the memo goes in so that we can feed into it. Once the memo is adopted it can form the basis of the information to be made available to the public in advance of plebiscites taking place.

Members asked questions about timelines. It is stated that it must be done within 30 days but that does not mean it will be done on the 31st day. It is a statutory minimum. Another issue concerns reporting within two years. If the plebiscites are held and rejected, the reports should be short and sweet, and very quick. The report on actions to be taken if the plebiscite has a positive result would be more lengthy but it puts a backstop to it. As Deputies Ó Broin and O'Brien stated , this discussion has been taking place for years in Dublin but there has never been an end point. The plebiscite issue would have an end point of two years but it would not be my intention to make this a minimum period. In fact, it would be a maximum.

Deputy O'Dowd asked about urban area committees. Part 6, which comprises four sections, speaks to that issue. It is a big issue in the Deputy's part of the world, with a huge chunk of Drogheda in County Meath. A huge chunk of Waterford city is in Kilkenny but we will not go into too much detail on that. I only looked at the headline issues in the applications which were made by the different local authorities and, as I understand it, some local authorities opted out of making any decisions themselves under the urban regeneration fund and put in nine or ten applications. That is not the basis on which to secure funding for anything. Some local authorities put in very specific proposals and secured funding but the Drogheda relief road was not, to the lay person, urban regeneration. A master plan for Drogheda, or for any town, would very much be part of urban regeneration. The application system will open again next February. Before Report Stage, I will speak to my colleague, the Minister of State with responsibility for planning issues, Deputy English, regarding the reasonable suggestion that areas which have been designated under the national planning framework as areas for development should get more resources to allow them to pursue that development.

In answer to Deputy Ó Broin, there will be a memo in January and I have no problem having a debate in committee or elsewhere. Deputy Ó Cuív spoke about pre-legislative scrutiny but my understanding is that the committee did not seek prelegislative scrutiny on this. The Galway proposal was in it when the decision was made so I cannot be accused of not being available. There have been multiple meetings on this issue and there will be many more but it is factually incorrect to talk about prelegislative scrutiny as the committee made a decision not to do it. It is not my fault nor the fault of my officials. I am not saying it is the committee's fault because this is a particularly busy committee. In fact, there is great merit in the idea of local government having its own full committee because of the amount of stuff that comes before the committee.

The Cabinet adopted a report about three months ago. It was one of the first reports I presented to Cabinet and it was on the issue of directly elected mayors. It received some publicity in the newspapers and it was submitted to the committee for consideration. The committee is busy and it was not considered by it. That is not my fault or the committee's fault because it is grappling primarily with housing. It is also not a fair criticism to say that the discussion did not happen.

There are certain time sensitivities associated with this Bill, not least the fact that people will contest local elections next year. In Cork, people who are considering running want certainty about boundaries. There are issues about the establishment of electoral registers, which we mentioned with regard to an earlier section of the Bill. I know the point that Deputy Ó Cuív is making about rushing legislation. I have been here for 16 years and there is always a pre-Christmas rush. We have been looking to get on the schedule with the Business Committee for a long time. I would say to all members who have representatives on the Business Committee that we want their support to get legislation to the committee more quickly. Now that we are here, we should have the discussion. It is not any effort on our part to stop it from coming to this point.

Deputy Grealish spoke of a merger. If the merger goes ahead, it should and will be in a separate Bill. There will be a local government Bill 2019 next year, which will primarily be about Galway, but like all other local government Bills, there will be other sections relating to other aspects of local government. It is an area in which there is legislation which often refers to different issues. Galway will have its own Bill next year. The Deputy does not agree with directly elected mayors and I would suggest that many people in local government do not agree with them. There is no answer. People differ and the public will decide ultimately. Galway was included in this Bill with regard to chief executives because all the mergers that have happened in Limerick, Waterford and Tipperary started with the appointment of a joint chief executive officer. I will go into some detail on what we propose to do with regard to funding. When I got this position, about 18 months ago, there was a significant long-running problem in the funding of Galway County Council. It stems partly from the fact that the city council established in 1985 had an impact on the funding for the county. It was never dealt with properly. I will speak about that later.

Deputy Eugene Murphy spoke about issues which I will come back to, including finance, as did Deputy Fitzmaurice. He spoke about the understanding in Limerick. One can ask our Oireachtas colleagues in Limerick about it. The city has transformed. Whether it is transformed by the merger of the local authorities or not-----