The leader of the Labour party, Ivana Bacik, has squarely criticized Minister of State Emer Higgins for what she called ‘Fine Gael dog whistling’ in reference to her role in the proposed Dublin City Council Transport Plan’s deliberations. Bacik took issue with what she deemed as inappropriate intrusion by Higgins, a junior minister, accusing her of attempting to obstruct the traffic proposal unanimously agreed upon by the Dublin City Council councillors.
Regardless, Taoiseach Simon Harris defended Higgins’ contribution as “completely apt” and argued that acquiring ministerial status does not impede one’s right to express opinions on public matters.
A high-ranking council officer declared on Monday that Higgins, in alliance with certain business owners, is advocating for the proposed changes to be postponed at least until 2025. This recommendation comes on the back of apprehensions around the potential detrimental effect on employment and retail sales within the city that the program may induce.
Scheduled to commence on August 1st, the program is primarily designed as a solution to the city’s escalating traffic congestion problem. It seeks to eliminate “non-purpose” city-bound traffic, highlighting that two-thirds of motorists are merely passing through the city rather than stopping in.
The planned protocols would not prohibit motorists from using any bridge over the Liffey currently accessible to vehicles. The council also confirmed that access to city parking facilities would be unaffected.
Bacik reiterated her belief that Higgins’ involvement has undertones of Fine Gael signalling, and expressed worries about the implications for local governance. She commented on the inappropriateness of ministerial interference when local government decisions have been made, noting the international criticism received due to the fragility of the nation’s local government structure.
However, Harris lauded Higgins’ efforts as being very appropriate, maintaining that she was merely conveying the concerns of business representatives to the City Council. He argued that the minister had consistently stressed that the final decision rests with the City Council in all her public statements.