Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The provision for a plebiscite in Dublin is an important element of empowering locally elected councillors in Dublin together with the electorate to decide on a key element of future governance for the capital city. As such, any proposal will not be my model nor the Government's model for a directly elected mayor but rather it will come from the elected members so that it can be put to the people of Dublin for decision. I will not be prescriptive about what the powers or functions of a directly elected mayor should be, so long as there is a clarity and full information for the Dublin electorate to make an informed choice. It is up to the councils in the four local authorities to agree to a model to put to the people in a plebiscite. I understand the forum of the four authorities convened at my request by the lord mayor is close to finalising its work. I look forward to the proposal for the resolution to be decided by the four authorities being submitted to me, probably before Christmas.

There is an onus on the 130 elected members in Dublin to develop a consensus on the clarity of purpose and role of the directly elected mayor, the functions to be discharged by that post and what mixture of powers of local authorities, central government and national bodies could most efficiently and effectively be discharged by the holder of the position. There will also be need for clarity about the residual powers and functions of themselves as elected members and their councils. This balance must be struck in such a way as to make the prospect of a directly elected mayor attractive to a majority of the Dublin electorate so that the proposal of the councils can pass in a plebiscite next May.

To maximise the prospects for passage of the plebiscite, it will need to be very clear that the model recommended represents a consensus view of the elected members across the four authorities and all political persuasions. If the elected members cannot form a consensus as to the form and function of the directly elected mayor I will not be the referee as to which competing model for the post can be put to the electorate in a plebiscite.

Amendment No. 59 is not necessary because the Bill already addresses the concerns of the Deputy. As I have outlined, a range of functions and governance arrangements must be identified prior to a plebiscite for a directly elected mayor. This requirement is already clearly set out in the Bill. The amendment ignores section 61 which requires the identification of functions for possible transfer to the new office of directly elected mayor including from central Departments. As I have indicated I will not be prescriptive as to what these functions should be, where they should come from, nor will I place limits on the ambition of the elected members in this regard, so long as there is clarity for the electorate as to the costs and other implications of the suggestions advanced for decision in the plebiscite.

On amendment No. 63, the Minister will be required within two years to present a legislative proposal for the directly elected mayor, having regard to the question put to the electorate or else explain to both Houses why this will not be brought forward if that is the decision.

See this speech in context