Mr. Adrian Geissel:

If there is a deficit in the democratic system, that should be solved. The mayorship may not necessarily solve that problem if we are not prepared to solve it independently. I sometimes look at how we do things. The mayorship is a kind of independent variable. If we have a problem with democracy, a Dublin mayor is not going to fix the issues faced by someone living in Laois. If there is not enough representation - Deputy Duffy mentioned the various authorities on the list - surely that is a problem independent from the question of a directly elected mayor.

The second part of this is that the elected representatives are there to guide on policy and are not there to do. I believe we are possibly confusing the two. If at the end of this process there is a directly elected mayor for Dublin, he or she will not be digging the tunnel for the MetroLink. We will still have that management hierarchy. In my head, it is very easy to make assumptions around how we do this stuff. The fundamental decision-making and policy-making process is in place but perhaps it needs to become more robust.

On direct representation, if we can get everything else in line, that is fair enough.

The point I was hoping to make a couple of minutes ago was that the seductive idea of a single figurehead who can see everything through has a little bit of a dark side in that it opens up the opportunity for a single-issue candidate to get through. This might mean that all the energy and all the focus goes on transport, or on the MetroLink to pick one project as an example. Having a single-issue mayorship, with the authority, clout and budget which goes with it, may not necessarily be in the interests of the overall position. Councils have a broad remit and mandate. The councils, as the bodies corporate, and the councillors, as the policymakers within that, need to look after all of the constituents in a more balanced way. Those are the two points I was hoping to make.