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

It is very good that they are being taken out. I am glad to see that the mayor will still have a role to play in policy initiation in strategic planning, but the exclusions related to planning applications are sensible.

With regard to the expression of my disappointment, it is not that I expected these things to be included, but I would still like to see them included. There is no devolution from central government or State agencies. Notwithstanding the fact that it is not included, we need to have a conversation after the plebiscites, if they are successful, to ask if we can work into the legislation the possibility of further rolling devolution after this proposal, subject to the votes of the people in the three cities concerned. That would be very positive. We also need to have a conversation about deeper levels of fiscal independence for local authorities. It is a significant challenge and the system does not lend itself well to it, but that needs to be part of the debate when we come back with the legislation if the plebiscites are successful. It seems strange to me that we are having plebiscites on this reform in three cities and that the four Dublin local authorities are not being included. I know that we could not do this with a directly elected mayor for all of Dublin city and county, but there is no reason the proposition that will be put to the people of Limerick, Cork and Galway could not be put to the people of the four Dublin local authorities in order that those of us in south Dublin could decide if we wanted to have a directly elected mayor for south Dublin on the same basis. I ask the Minister of State to think about this and even if it is not possible to do it because the legislation providing for the plebiscites has been passed, could we find some way to do it and have plebiscites before mayoral elections are held in these three cities?

I am concerned about the short timeframe involved. I do not think the Minister of State's argument about the divorce referendum stands up because despite the fact that many of us support it, we are concerned about the timeline.

I have been talking to my colleagues in Cork, Waterford and Limerick, who tell me either that people know nothing about this or that there is very limited information. I absolutely agree with Deputy Cassells, the information that ended up in the public domain as a result of conflicting briefings from two Ministers in two newspapers after the Cabinet meeting some weeks ago is not helpful. I am sure the Minister of State did not want it that way. All people are talking about is the salary. I want us to focus on the powers. I do think the salary is too high and that should be dealt with separately. I do not think that putting a leaflet into every house in the three cities will suffice. There is a real concern, even among people who are supportive of the reform on its own merits that we will have a hard job convincing people to get this across the line. That will not lead us to oppose the proposition but there is a job of work to be done in order to get it across the line.

The worst possible outcome here would be for these plebiscites to go ahead and to be lost. Several of us said when the legislation was coming through that we had spent quite a lot of time in the Dublin mayoral reform process and my experience, having been involved at the tail end of that as a co-opted councillor and from its being unsuccessful. was that in hindsight, it almost looked as though it was set up to fail. It was so cumbersome, so badly designed and there was such lack of clarity in what we were asking our elected members in the Dublin local authorities to do that it was no wonder that one of the four councils opted out. The Minister of State should listen to what we are staying about the difficulties and the lack of time and should work with us to ensure that if this is put to the people of the three cities in question, we will do everything we can to win it because if we do not, it will be a setback rather than an advance.

See this speech in context