Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I will come back to my observations on head 45. We have had a good discussion on the role of the director general. I can understand why staffing is not included within the mayor's remit, but we must look at introducing an element of control because much of the budget and strategic decisions in the council are based on staffing. While I do not expect the mayor to deal with individual one-on-one staffing matters, I think including some input into staffing with the director general should be considered.

On head 47 and the specified functions, I was disappointed to see waste management as one of the specified functions of the director general rather than the directly elected mayor. While I hope we will see other cities take this up, waste management is something we in Dublin would like to see under the control of the mayor rather than the county manager. It has been one of the big gripes between the two camps. Head 45 allows the director general to enter into contracts. My concern is that this could include the purchasing of land, subcontracting services and so on. Providing a level of oversight of that might make it more palatable.

Head 53 relates to the removal procedures. The Minister of State was very clear that the removal of a directly elected official is a serious matter. We have designed a process that creates a political football and that would essentially lead to the holding of impeachment hearings similar to those in the US being the ultimate outcome. We should avoid that. The problem with Irish politics is that it is very fractured. In that context, a party that may have only 10% support can be in government. It is possible that, regardless of who is in government, those in opposition could rally the support of 70% or 80% of all councillors in respect of a national issue that might not relate to the mayor at all. The process would then be referred to the Minister, who would appoint a panel of people. Ultimately, it is the Minister who makes the decision on removal from office. This means that those in opposition on the council could kick the mayor around in order to try to get the Minister to make a decision to remove the mayor. We need to be careful about this process and, in that context, I ask the Minister to review it.

Many directly elected models involve a recall option. This is a very serious option. Perhaps, however, removing a mayor should be considered the most serious option. Anyone proposing it should bear in mind what it means. I am worried that we are setting up a procedure which essentially allows the issue to be kicked around between national and local government. The mayor, regardless of which party he or she represents, will suffer as a result.

Head 56 relates to the plebiscites for all cities. The process for approving such plebiscites is not clear. It would be useful to provide clarity on that.

The remainder of the Bill deals largely with issues relating to the running of elections. With the electoral reform Bill and the electoral commission being established, would it be better to deal with some of those measures in overarching legislation rather than having different electoral procedures governed by different Acts put in place as decisions are made to directly elect mayors in other cities?

I will leave it to the Minister of State to consider those questions. This is a hugely ambitious and exciting opportunity to devolve powers away from unelected officials to people and to give councils more powers. The final version of the Bill must do all those things. I congratulate the Minister of State on the work he has done so far and wish him the best with it.