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

I thank the Minister of State for the explanation.

Of all of the amendments that were covered by yesterday's motion, this group of amendments are of the biggest concern and I share all of the concerns outlined by Deputy Casey.

One reason pre-legislative scrutiny was introduced was to allow us to tease out the kind of questions we will ask now and to get responses from both Ministers and Ministers of State and councillors or sitting managers from the areas that could be affected, for example. This was designed to fix a particular problem and the difficulty is that the way this is designed may work for some areas and not for others. Alternatively, it may work for one part of a geographical area that would become one of these urban area committees but we do not have the opportunity to tease that out with those organisations or individuals. While I can see the logic in introducing the measures on plebiscites, particularly with the deadline for registration, I am still at a loss as to why we are dealing with this significant proposed change to our local government structures in this way.

If I read it right, there could be an urban area committee that is made up of a very large geographical portion of one county and a very small geographical portion of another county but they will have exactly the same number of representatives. There is a democracy question around the proportionality of the representation that they have. As the voter base difference can be very substantial, I ask the Minister of State to clarify that with as much detail as possible in order that we know where the upper and lower limits of all that would be.

While the only voting members of the committee are elected members, there is no guidance on those elected members being in some way representative of the councils that they come from. For example, if one party has a simple majority in the council, it could dominate all three elected positions, rather than having something that is proportionate. I ask the Minister of State to clarify exactly how that would work.

I refer to the staff in the proposed new section 40(16). Correct me if I am wrong, because we have only had two days to read this, but it seems to be that the staff requirements can be decided by the committee, irrespective of whether the city or county manager or the chief executives approve. I do not understand how that works from a HR, staff management and resources point of view. Who will replace those staff for a period?

There also does not seem to be any level of consultation with the elected members of the broader electoral authorities. Again, I ask the Minister of State to correct me if I am reading it wrong. The super-committee of eight, with two chairs and six ordinary members, will agree the plan, but as an extension of Deputy Casey's question, does it have to go back to its two respective local authorities to get that approved? Does it approve it itself? How is that process outlined?

I refer to the issue of costs. This committee will make profound decisions. By the way, it might make really good decisions and decisions that are very popular but the local authorities will have to bear the costs of those decisions. Is that the most democratic way of doing it and how is all of that determined? The same issue arises with zonings. There could be very controversial decisions on zonings, which could raise all sorts of complicated issues and I am not clear around all of that.

I am very uncomfortable with amendment No.-----