I thank you, Sir, for allowing this motion. I know you are interested in it. I welcome the Minister to the House. Senator Belton, Senator Cregan and Senator Mullooly wish to share my time.
Adjournment Matters. - Conditions for Local Authority Members.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
We must first look at the role local authority representatives have played since the foundation of the State. They are owed a great debt of gratitude for their hard work. They are the unpaid servants of this country. I raised this matter on the Adjournment because the issue warrants immediate attention.
I wrote to the Minister at the end of October and I thank him for his prompt reply. I received a further letter this week about councillors' expenses. County councillors are at one in agreeing that the Minister is sympathetic to their needs.
One of my main reasons for raising this matter is that councillors are at the critical stage of formulating their estimates for 1994. When we spoke with the Minister over the year in relation to councillors' expenses criteria were being used as to what they may receive regarding mileage or attendance at meetings. In 1993 councillors were anxious that whatever they received would be retrospective to 1 January 1993. I understand the Minister has not as yet made an announcement in relation to the new memorandum on councillors' expenses. If it is not made until 1 January, where will councillors and local authorities stand? Will it mean that local authority members continue what they have been doing over the last number of years?
The Minister made proposals in relation to bands and stated that he was in favour of bands of 30, 50 and 70. Some time ago the Local Authority Members' Association submitted a proposal to the Minister that they would be in full agreement if those bands were widened to 40, 60, 80 and 160, respectively.
One hundred and what?
160. I think the Minister was circulated with those proposals earlier this year.
I certainly forgot the bigger number.
The Minister is aware that two ballots were carried out in 1993, by the General Council of County Councils and the Local Authority Members' Association. As I saw it the General Council of County Councils' ballot was put to the local authority members in a way that was designed to ensure that they accepted there should be a change and that it would not be the last word in accepting the Minister's proposal at that time. It is interesting to note what happened in that ballot. Eleven counties were unhappy with the Minister's proposals while the members in Cork city, Dublin city and Dublin County Council did not vote at all, and they are the three biggest local authorities in the country. Eight counties were in favour of accepting the Minister's proposals and half were against.
In the Local Authority Members' Association ballot the indications were that the proposals would be acceptable provided the bands were widened to 40, 60, 80 and 160. There were a number of other issues in the LAMA ballot which included that a statement of practice should be obtained from the Revenue Commissioners to the effect that payments to councillors, including the chairperson's allowance, would be tax free. Another was that local authorities should continue to pay expenses of members attending meetings of LAMA, the AMAI and the General Council of County Councils; that clarification was needed on mileage and subsistence rates for conferences, regional meetings and seminars; and that telephone, postage and miscellaneous expenses were inadequate. Overall, I feel that if the bands were widened and the other criteria, which were circulated to the Minister, were met, there would be general acceptance.
The main reason I raised this matter is that most local authorities may not make the necessary provisions in their 1994 estimates for any increases that would be incurred as a result of any announcement by the Minister in this regard in early 1994. Under the Minister's proposals a small town commission would need £3,600 and a small urban council would need a minimum of £7,200 to cover expenses and they will not adequately provide for those in their estimates if the Minister does not make the announcement immediately.
I thank the Minister for coming to the House. Everybody respects what he has done and what he intends to do.
Senator Belton, if you are dividing the time three ways, you have about a minute each.
I too welcome the Minister to the House. As Senator Burke said, councils are dealing with their 1994 estimates at the moment they would be glad to know exactly where they stood and for what they have to budget. There is no doubt that councillors, in their capacity as public representatives, carry a large workload at local level. We hear a great deal nowadays about development at local level and within the community and it is only right that this important area of local democracy should be encouraged. Councillors are reasonable people and many are prepared to give their time voluntarily but, at the same time, they are entitled to reasonable expenses. At present it is very difficult to get anybody to do anything for nothing but even with the expenses the Minister is proposing, councillors will still have to meet huge individual outlays.
I commend Senator Burke for raising this matter at this opportune time when local authorities are preparing their 1994 budget. As Senator Burke and Senator Belton stated, all local authorities are facing problems. When it comes to attending conferences some of them will have a problem because of the reduced amount provided for expenses. It is important that local democracy is recognised, that local councillors are treated properly and respected for the valuable work they do at local level and the service they provide to the community. I have no doubt that the Minister, who was a member of a local authority for a number of years, appreciates the huge effort that is being put in by councillors. It is time councillors were give proper recognition by his Department. I support everything my colleagues said and I urge the Minister to act on this matter quickly because it is currently being discussed at estimates meetings across the country. Councillors and county managers need the position clarified.
I join in the request for the Minister to outline his final proposals in relation to a new system of allowances for local authority members as soon as possible. The Minister will recall that my Fianna Fáil Seanad colleagues and I had a very constructive meeting with him about this matter last July. At that time we discussed the proposals the Minister had circulated and we made a number of suggestions. The Minister indicated that he would be prepared to look sympathetically at the possibility of increasing the minimum band to 40 meetings. This was a realistic request to the Minister because even the smallest local authority holds in excess of 30 meetings which are vital to allow it to do its business properly but that does not provide for meetings which have to be held in connection with revisions of the county development plan, estimates, etc. Because of the Minister's attitude when he met us, I know his final proposals will incorporate some of the suggestions we made that day. I hope he will outline his final set of proposals as soon as possible.
I thank Senator Burke, Senator Belton, Senator Taylor-Quinn and Senator Mullooly for raising this matter and I am glad to have the opportunity to put the significant changes I am proposing in this area before the House. Senator Burke's matter refers to conditions for local authority members. I could point to several measures introduced during the past few years that have improved the conditions of elected members of local authorities — statutory recognition of their policy making role, extra reserved function and allowances for chairmen. My proposals for a modernised system of expenses payments to councillors constitute yet another measure designed to secure and enhance the position of local authority members, thereby strengthening our system of democratic local government.
The mark of the Victorian legislators is still evident in local government law and, moreover, there has been a considerable accretion of primary and secondary legislation either in addition to, or in partial substitution for, the original codes. All this has made for an unwieldy and confusing maze of local government law. Next year, I will be introducing a Bill to streamline the law on meetings, procedures and other operational aspects of the local government system.
Before then, however, I intend to have implemented regulations under the Local Government Act, 1991, to rationalise and modernise the system of allowances for local authority members. The need for such reform becomes clear when one considers that the existing law is scattered between at least five different Acts, going back as far as 1885, and numerous statutory instruments and departmental circulars. However, it is not so much the age or the diffuseness of these provisions, but rather their content, that primarily necessitates change. The existing regime — I hesitate to refer to it as a system — is rife with anomalies, unnecessary bureaucracy and centralised controls. The most compelling reason perhaps for introducing a revised system of councillors' allowances is the need to take due account of the demands and burdens placed on members of modern day local authorities, without weakening the basic voluntary nature of local government service. For example, it is essential that local authority meetings are organised in such a way as to make it feasible for people in the widest possible range of occupations to participate as members.
With the foregoing considerations in mind, I set about seeing what could be done to arrive at a modern, efficient and equitable system of allowances. I was determined to pursue this issue through a consensus approach, to involve councillors and to get the views of as wide a spectrum of members as possible. My efforts to this end have been largely successful. Although not obliged to do so by law, I facilitated an extensive degree of consultation on the matter. I made my proposals known to the local authority associations and to each individual councillor in every part of the country, from the largest local authority to the smallest. I met councillors' representatives and endeavoured to explain the implications of what was proposed. Most importantly, I tried to take account, as far as possible, of the feedback from councillors in drawing up revised proposals.
Members of this House who are local authority members will be well aware of what is involved, but for the benefit of Members who may not be familiar with the matter, I will mention a few of the more significant improvements involved.
The central element is the annual allowance, payable in instalments, instead of a payment per meeting system. The annual allowance will take full account of the distance which each councillor has to travel to the council headquarters and will be based on a meetings index relating to bands of local authorities drawn up on the basis of data received from the local authorities and having regard to broad orders of scale and population. One of the most significant features of the new system is that it will incorporate an element for postage, telephone and miscellaneous representational coats for which there is no recognition at present. I made substantial improvements to the package of allowances, following consultations with councillors and their associations. For example, the meetings index was increased for each band of authority; the postage, telephone and representational allowances was doubled and the mileage and subsistence rates on which the allowance will be calculated were substantially increased.
While some councillors would wish to see higher rates of allowance introduced, there is a general appreciation of the constraints which must apply in this regard. The overwhelming majority of members acknowledge that the revised package represents a substantial advance. Indeed, this is reflected in the results of polls conducted by the Association of Municipal Authorities and the General Council of County Councils among their members which showed a significant majority in favour of the new system. In Senator Burke's own council, for example, I understand that almost 80 per cent of councillors voted in favour of the measure. The new arrangements will significantly improve the position of most members. What is more, every councillor will know exactly where he or she stands with regard to expenses and there will be a degree of consistency and equity, which has been noticeably lacking under the old arrangements. I have also given a commitment that the operation of the new system will be adequately monitored and that the various rates will be kept properly updated.
The detailed arrangements for implementation of the new system of allowances will be provided for in the regulations under section 51 of the Local Government Act, 1991. These regulations are being prepared and indeed, this work is at an advanced stage. I expect to make the regulations shortly providing for commencement of the new system at the earliest feasible date, which I hope will be 1 January 1994.
The Minister said that he will implement these measures by January 1. Can local authorities include this in their estimates or has he other plans for providing their funding?
There is an old story — I do not know if it is true — told in the other House. A former representative from a western constituency in the late 1940s refused to take an increase of £100 in the Dáil salary at the time. In the subsequent election, he was defeated. Some interested members of the media went down there to find out how such an honourable man could have lost. They were told in the first public house they went to that anyone who could not look after himself could not look after his constituents. I assume that county councillors who are doing estimates in anticipation of my intentions will take due regard and be sensible.
I can tell the House that Westmeath have theirs in.
You are nearer to the Minister, Cathaoirleach.
Does the Minister not consider that, in presenting the proposal like that, he is putting councillors in an invidious position? They will have to take a certain amount from a section of the estimates to cover their expenses and then someone will call, for example, for their road to be fixed. Does the Minister not think that is unfair to councillors?
I expect councillors will have the courage of their convictions.
The Seanad adjourned at 4.40 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 17 November 1993.