Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 24 Apr 2018

Vol. 257 No. 7

Councillors' Conditions: Statements (Resumed)

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government, Deputy John Paul Phelan, back to the House for the fourth time in as many months. Senator John Dolan has six minutes.

I thank the Minister of State for being here. My election campaign experience was interesting. I have known councillors all of my life through my work and so forth but the campaign was a very telling experience for me. I found that councillors were ready to respond and support local people with disabilities and their families. They did not say that they would not take one step beyond the remit of a local authority member because they understand community innately and that is a great asset. They are the connection and they wear their community interest as proudly as their party badge, if they have one. They work across the chamber with other colleagues, regardless of party, in order to progress matters for their communities.

People with disabilities and others live in local communities; they do not live in the Department of this or that. That is where all of the stuff either interconnects and dovetails or falls apart. That is a critical factor in terms of the role of councillors and local authorities and is something about which we should think more. How can they play a better role in showing how things work or do not work locally? They are in a critical space with deep local knowledge and the State and the Government must honour and support that now.

The Seanad had a lucky escape a few years ago. There was an attempt to abolish it. Local authorities got a pretty tight shaving as well when the whole lower layer was taken out. There is a paralysis regarding giving local authority members decent, 21st century supports to do their job. I want to ask a very provocative question. Does this Government want Ireland to have a functioning and thriving local authority element of democracy? Local government is the first level of democracy. There is a cynicism or fear at the heart of the slowness to deal with this issue. I also believe that members of local authorities and the authorities themselves need to be challenged. It is not all one-way traffic here. Reform is needed and members can play a stronger and better role. It is about more than mileage, travel expenses and allowances.

The Government could solve this problem fairly smartly but is afraid of or nervous about public cynicism about politicians in general. If we do not talk up, support and properly reform this level of democracy, what will happen next? The same people will come after the national level. In that context, it is important not to be afraid. Supporting local councillors and their work is not about supporting party cronies; it is about supporting people who are the first line of democratic participation and representation in this country. If we at a national level do not bolster and support councillors and enhance their role, the next group that the cynics will come after will be the people in these two Chambers. Councillors are our front line troops. We might not be happy about everything they do every day but we have to decide what horse we are backing. Reform is an essential part of this. While we can talk about money, travel, subsistence and so forth, the heart of this issue is not about money. It is about having a flourishing local, community-based, democratic system in Ireland and councillors are at the root of that.

There are two pillars involved and we need to sort out both of them. On the one hand, there is the practical, bread and butter pillar including mileage, travel expenses, allowances and so forth. Remuneration and work related expenses form one pillar. The other pillar, to which we must give attention, is the supports provided to councillors and local authorities, including research supports and facilities for communications and engagement. We need to build on both aspects. We need to give councillors a challenging and meaningful role within their communities and within the extensive civil society sector. Their role is not just about making representations on behalf of people, although that is a vital part of their job. Just as important is public participation, networks, groups and so forth and making sure that they can be supported.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy John Paul Phelan, to the House for the fourth time.

Senator Acting Chairman Gerry Horkan

This is his second time here today.

Indeed it is. This is about the role of the councillor at the heart of community. While some will suggest that this debate is just about remuneration, expenses and allowances, it is about a lot more than that.

Having served on a local authority myself, I believe that councillors are deserving of a realistic income which should be put on a statutory basis. Local government members contribute to public bodies, to the betterment of our health and education systems and the improvement of our local government areas. Senator Dolan spoke about the issue of supports. Councillors are involved at municipal district level, they sit on strategic policy committees, on education and training boards, ETBs, on transport policy committees and development committees for cities and counties. This work requires support.

If Members of the Oireachtas had to do their work without secretarial assistants or if Dáil Members had to work without parliamentary assistants - to which Senators should also be entitled - they would not be able to be focused and professional.

Last week in Cork city there was an impasse between the local authority and traders on Patrick Street regarding access. Local councillors sat down with the traders, engaged and took the time to arrive at a decision that was not based on a whim but on real information. I would contend that the management of the local authority had that information at its finger tips but the councillors did not.

The Association of Irish Local Government, AILG, made a presentation to Members prior to the beginning of this debate. That 541 councillors would be disadvantaged financially makes no sense.

It is wrong. I know of one member in west Cork who stands to lose a significant amount of money. To be fair to her, it is not about money for her. She takes her role very seriously in being on interview boards and different council sub-committees.

The Minister of State is very sincere and genuine, having been involved in politics for a long time, including as a councillor. He is committed to the establishment of an independent review group. I hope it will be able to carry out its work in a timely and urgent manner, that it will not take forever to report and that it will come back swiftly. It is about ensuring the proposed remuneration reform group will deliver a report at which councillors can look and I hope buy into. The AILG has asked for it to have an independent chairman from outside the realm of the existing pool of potential chairmen. There is an impasse and we are at a crossroads in local government. I do not say that in a populist way because, as Members of this House, councillors are our constituents. I say it as an anorak who is concerned about the way politics is going in general. I have repeatedly said we cannot allow politics to become the preserve of the few, people who are independently wealthy and can delve in an out. I have spoken to councillors who are working and trying to strike a balance in leaving work to attend meetings at 3 p.m. and then having to go back to work. They have to take days off work or their businesses have closed as a result of their being involved in politics. That is what we are looking at.

We are on the precipice of the 2019 local elections. An independent review group is to be established, while in time a boundary review group will report to the Minister of State. It is critical that after a time in which there was the withdrawal of money and goodwill from local authority members we and the Government turn the ship around, support them and give them our imprimatur as Members of this House. Local government is not just about fixing potholes and lamps, as some people seem to think. It is about the future of cities and our counties. It is about the planned balanced development about which we talk here in the context of regional regeneration. It is also about the delivery of an enhanced public realm, with ensuring we will have services and the provision of housing. That is what people are talking about. It is not about footpaths and fixing potholes, rather it is about the lives of people and the impact it has on them. I commend the Minister of State and wish the review group well. I hope it can do its work in a timely manner.

I thank the Minister of State and welcome him to the Chamber.

As a former councillor, in speaking about councillors' conditions I want to highlight an aspect of their work about which we seldom talk. When we hear about the unacceptable figure of 10,000 people who were homeless in the State last month, we are filled with disgust. No one is frustrated more by the figures than the people on the ground who work with families, children and the elderly. I draw the Minister of State's attention to the figures because each number represents a real person who is asking for help. The people who are dealing with the human beings on the ground are councillors in every town and county and those involved in charities who deal with the homeless. Councillors in local areas are the ones who are trying to help a mother as she cries in placing her children in a hotel room for another night. There is uncertainty in such an instance. The councillor is the one on the telephone to the local housing officer pleading for someone to hear the plight of yet another person in crisis. It is a local councillor to whom such persons go first. Why do we treat councillors with disrespect and such unfairness? They work way beyond the regular nine-to-five hours. People need their help at all hours of the day and on all days of the week. As I was a councillor for over two decades and know how hard I worked, I know how hard they work. Local councillors want to help. They want to change their world. That is why they get involved in politics in the first place. They are not paid a massive amount of money. They are paid a total annual allowance of €16,645 and receive some expenses. Many of them have two or three jobs. Many of them have trouble in meeting their bills, but they go out and work with families to try to do their best to solve the problems of others. They try to bring jobs and money to the local economy. They are the unrecognised first responders in many crises. We owe them more for the service they provide.

Fianna Fáil supports fair pay and conditions for local representatives. It is also important that the local government system be overhauled and reformed to give local representatives additional powers and responsibilities. Local government is a key tier of government, the one closest to citizens. It is vital in a healthy democracy that representatives be empowered and are able to represent everybody. A fair and equitable pay and conditions framework is central to that objective. The Minister for Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform announced in February that he would establish a review of councillors' pay and conditions. The review is due to be completed by the end of 2018 and is being undertaken by an independent consultant. The move comes on the back of the reduction in the number of councillors under the Local Government Reform Act before the local elections in May 2014. With the abolition of some councils and the amalgamation of others, the number of local representatives decreased from 1,627 to 949. That is unacceptable. The 949 members were surveyed in July and August 2016 and the overwhelming conclusion was that councillors' workload had increased greatly. The geographical areas for which they were responsible also doubled in size. There is now one councillor for every 4,500 people.

I am upset because I do not think the Minister of State is listening to councillors. When he is not listening to them, he is not listening to the people whom they represent and who are coming to them. When the Government abolished town councils, we lost funding for every town council. As a result of the amalgamations, there is now one budget in local authorities. It is not enough. I can only speak about my area of Carlow. When we talk about central government funding, in Carlow we receive one of the lowest amounts in the country. I have brought up the issue several times with the Minister of State, but he is not listening. I am asking him to listen to councillors and Senators because we represent them. Mainly, I am asking him to listen to the people, those who are crying out for help and who depend on councillors. I hope he will come back with a fair deal for councillors and listen to the people.

I welcome the Minister of State. I do not for one moment doubt his absolute commitment. I get a sense that he relishes and is excited about the plans for the reform of local government. He is someone with whom I worked on the General Council of County Councils. I know of his vigour, enthusiasm and commitment to local government.

I looked at the numbers on my database for county councillors. I will give the Minister of State the figures. The round figure is 950. There are approximately 235 Fine Gael councillors; 266 Fianna Fáil councillors; 147 Sinn Féin councillors; 202 independent councillors; 50 Labour Party councillors; 12 Green Party councillors; and 38 others. That gives one a sense of the dynamics involved. I do not think it is a party thing. Across the House, we all recognise the need for politicians at every level in the parliamentary process and local government to be remunerated fairly. We have to obtain a fair deal for councillors. The Minister of State was involved with LAMA and the AILG. A number of Fine Gael councillors who met the Minister of State in private session in Dungarvan were excited by all of the promises made, but they are not so excited today. Different political groupings have had their expectations raised only to be disappointed.

I will focus unapologetically on proper and fair remuneration for councillors. I propose that it be €28,000, at a minimum, and possibly €30,000. I make no apologies and do not care if Joe Duffy is listening.

I am prepared to go on any television or radio station and argue strongly that the elected members of all parties need to be treated fairly in terms of their commitment. Someone asked me once to describe what is the job of a county councillor. I said: "Well, it is a bit of a cross synergy really because you're a bit of a priest, you're a bit of a social worker, you're a bit of an advocate and, to a lesser extent, you're a bit of a politician, and you have to juggle a lot of demands, a lot of asks, in your own community." There is nothing worse than not being able to deliver for your own community. One of the great things about local government in this country, and for that matter, all politics in this country, is that the electorate has very easy and ready access to politicians. I think that is a good and a very healthy thing. It is something that does not happen across Europe but it certainly happens in Ireland. It is very frustrating when one is asked and challenged to make a strong case for one's community and the people one lives among and for enterprise and community initiatives and one cannot deliver. However, parking all of that, a lot of people want to remain in local government but they cannot sustain their job in local government and are going to have to leave.

It is incumbent on the Minister of State to stop all the promises. I will read a letter I wrote to the Minister, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, on 8 February 2018 and I received a response on 13 April. I have it in front of me. In summary, it says that I raised a number of questions in relation to sitting county councillors and their remuneration, but the Minister informed me that the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, is to consider sitting county councillors' pay in the first instance. That is what is happening. Every time I meet someone it is a case of Paschal or the Minister is looking at it. When I meet another Minister he tells me the Department is dealing with it. It is a joke. I do not think we should apologise about paying the councillors a fee. It has to be in the context of better local government, which is part of the Government's reform for local government. A whole load of changes are planned as we go forward.

I must tell the Minister that councillors from his party and from none, Independents, Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin and the Labour Party, People Before Profit and the not for profit, whoever they are, are absolutely frustrated and they do not believe they have any real champion. It is easy for me as an Independent to say this. There are three Fine Gael Ministers in the Custom House. There is a Fine Gael Minister in the Department of Finance. I ask Fine Gael councillors what influence they have. Why do they keep telling me that in another few weeks they will be getting this or that? That is not to point score but I just want to make the point that the time has come to give those people proper recognition for their work and proper pay to sustain them because far too many councillors have told me they are dipping into their pockets, into their housekeeping money, to pay and to subsidise their work on behalf of local communities. If we do not value ourselves, who else will?

People in the Minister of State's party and none want to stay in local government and the time has come for action. I would like to hear today from the Minister of State how much progress he has made in getting an independent chair. Could he give a short timeframe rather than a long one? Could whatever recommendations that he will support be implemented without delay, not on a promise and not next year? If the committee and terms of reference are established with an independent chair in the next few weeks, could we set a target? Could the Minister of State come back here, hopefully at the end of September with hard commitments for us to implement? That is what people would like and I do not doubt for one moment that is what the Minister of State would like.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy John Paul Phelan, to the House. I regret that I did not have an opportunity to speak in the previous debate on councillors' pay and conditions but I am pleased to do so now. Councillors are one of the most crucial tenets of this State's democracy. They provide in-depth knowledge of a particular local area, its community, its infrastructure and its vitality as part of wider Irish society.

The work that we do in this House is largely focused on national issues. While that is the way it should be, we should not lose sight of the fact that councillors do not receive the same opportunities that we, as Oireachtas Members, do. That is in spite of the fact that no councillor seeks election to a local authority to be well paid or receive the high status of office that often happens here in the Oireachtas. Many councillors hold two jobs. They surrender their evenings and weekends as part of their work. They do so out of commitment, duty, passion and love for their local community. They do not receive gratitude that matches the hard work they do. The sacrifices they make can be to the detriment of their family life, social life, relationships, physical and mental health. I concur with everything Senator Dolan spoke about. The question is whether we want a good element of local democracy and a flourishing local democracy. If so, then we should back the reform horse.

In the context of our discussions tomorrow on the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill, I note there are interesting, creative propositions that support councillors. Senator Boyhan is carrying that into his everyday work in the Oireachtas and I look forward to speaking in support of his amendment to allow fees for observations and submissions regarding planning to be waived in the case of councillors.

The Sinn Féin spokesperson on housing, planning and local government, Deputy Eoin Ó Broin, is undertaking a scoping exercise on this matter in order to bring proposals to the Sinn Féin Party during the summer and we will forward the proposals on councillors to the Minister of State for his consideration on the issue. However, we can say that a reasonable salaried income is required that reflects the work done and one that does not actively discourage our best and most committed councillors and, as Senator Buttimer said, those who cannot afford to take on the role as it stands.

Further to that, there are has been much discussion in recent months of the centenary of women's suffrage and, inevitably, debates about encouraging equal gender participation across the political institutions. The National Women's Council of Ireland, NWCI, in its report on closing the gender pay gap, recommended varied measures around childcare and sufficient maternity leave to support women in the workplace. I commend the Sinn Féin councillor in Cork, Danielle Twomey, who has raised the issue of councillors not receiving maternity leave. It is a scandal that if they take six months leave from their roles, they will be deemed to have resigned from their roles. If we are to truly discuss how we are to encourage women into politics and lead by example on making the workplace a welcoming environment for women, we cannot continue to turn a cheek to that blatant obstacle facing members of society. Could the Minister of State please comment on that final point as well?

I welcome back to the House the former Senator, now Minister of State, Deputy John Paul Phelan, for the fourth time on this topic in recent months. As I alluded to previously, it is a very important issue. I also welcome the fact that when we ran out of time on the previous occasion the Minister of State agreed to come back to the House to hear the views of those Senators who did not get to speak then.

In his contribution on the previous occasion, the Minister of State pointed out that some improvements have been made to the supports provided to councillors in the past 12 months. I take issue with a number of those changes which I argue were not positive for the majority of county and city councillors. The PRSI payable by councillors is now equal to that paid by the self employed. However, that is of little or no benefit to the majority of councillors. The sum of €1,000 was provided to recognise the additional workload which has arisen as a result of the creation of the municipal districts but that has not been added to the expenses of councillors. Even though they are expenses, they have been added to the representational allowance, which is subject to income tax and PRSI. The option of claiming €5,000 of vouched expenses is so restrictive that fewer than 3% of councillors have availed of it.

Of the 55 councillors on Cork County Council, for example, only one has opted for it.

Another of last year's measures changed the payment rates for mileage and introduced a banding system on par with that in the rest of the public sector. The bands and rates were agreed to by the public sector unions and representatives of the Government without any input from those who represented local authority members. It is a fundamental principle of any negotiation on public sector pay and conditions that the people affected be represented. I regret that this courtesy was not afforded to local authority members through the AILG or LAMA. As the Leader said, the bands have led to the introduction of a requirement for the aggregation of travel claims by members of local authorities across the various bodies in which they represent the public. To reiterate, they are representing the public, not themselves. We in the Oireachtas have placed an obligation on local authorities to nominate various members to serve on education and training boards, ETBs, regional assemblies, the governing authorities of various third level institutions and many other bodies. We are now requiring councillors and their parent local authorities to administer an extraordinarily convoluted system for the payment of a pittance to local authority members to cover their travel expenses which they incur in doing their duty. As a result of the changes, quite a few members have become disadvantaged financially. The new system of travel expenses has caused significant difficulties for rural councillors, in particular. Some councillors who represent rural constituencies, in some cases island communities, are losing up to €4,500 or €5,000 for doing their job.

Special recognition needs to be given to the unique status of the role of the local elected member within the local government system. The possibility of having a dedicated travel rates system applicable to local authority members only needs to be considered. No elected members can be allowed to be worse off owing to the so-called improvements to which the Minister of State alluded previously. It is welcome that the Minister of State is considering establishing a review body to examine the basic payment to councillors. I agree with Senator Victor Boyhan and other colleagues who have contributed on this debate that we should not be reluctant to stand up in the Chamber and fight for proper basic salaries and pensions for the politicians at the coalface of our democracy, namely, county councillors. I would like to see a deadline placed on the review body's work. Perhaps the Minister of State might be able to enlighten us since his consideration of the issue has progressed since he appeared before us a number of weeks ago. That there would be an independent chairperson is welcome, but he or she should have a knowledge of local government. Preferably, the chairperson should be a former senior member of a local authority who understands what it is like to represent the general public and the struggle involved.

I thank the Minister of State for returning to the House. If he does not have good news for us now, we look forward to progress having been made by the time he appears before us for a fifth time to discuss the matter. The situation has been ongoing for too long.

I thank Senator Diarmuid Wilson. He and I will swap place in order that I might speak for a few minutes, after which the Minister of State will conclude the debate.

I thank the Minister of State for attending. I appreciate that 15 Senators spoke on the last occasion and that I am the seventh this evening. With the possible exception of Senator Ray Butler who rose straight to the top, everyone else present in the Chamber has served on local authorities, some of us for a little longer than others. The Minister of State joined the Seanad relatively quickly, but the dual mandate was still in place for a little while. Senator Jennifer Murnane O'Connor has even longer service than me. I had 12.5 years service and Senator Victor Boyhan was not too far behind me.

I enjoyed every minute I served as a councillor. I was chairperson of the former Dublin Regional Authority. I was also chairperson of the new Eastern and Midland Regional Assembly, while I was a member of an ETB, theatre boards and audit committees. The members of many of these bodies received no remuneration at all. The Pavilion Theatre's board was a great one to be on, but there was nothing extra for attending all of the extra meetings, travel and so on. DLR Properties Limited was the same. Almost no councillor is in it for the money because there is none. We are asking people to do a full-time job for what effectively is less than the minimum wage, given the number of hours councillors work per week and the time they spend at various functions, turning up at events, attending school prize nights, raffles and residents meetings and lobbying on behalf of constituents. The Minister of State is probably distracted, but I am making these points to him as much as to anyone else.

Councillors are the first port of call. One councillor told me that someone had rang him on Christmas Day because his cable television service was not working. He had to ring someone else. When he asked the person why he had not rang his sister, he said he would have had to pay. I was about to say "we" because I was a councillor for so long, but councillors become the first port of call. They work hard. If Dublin City Council had a ratio of 1:4,730 or whatever the figure was in the previous reform process, it would have 119 councillors, not 63. Fingal County Council would have 65 or 66; Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council would have 44 or 45, while South Dublin County Council would have 51 or 52. Councillors on Dublin City Council might not cover enormous distances, but they have many constituents who, possibly because they have better broadband, are, by and large, able to send queries more quickly and who equally expect an immediate response.

When one is a councillor, everything one does is on one's own back. There is no secretarial or administrative support. Unless one is a wealthy person who is willing to pay for support out of his or her own resources, there is nothing available, save for the general support available within a local authority. I acknowledge that, by and large, local authority staff are helpful. Someone receives a representational payment of less than €17,000 per year to be a member of a local authority. For a long time and until recently, councillors were paying a 4% super tax called PRSI class K for nothing, as well as USC and normal taxes. We are taxing them as if they are employees.

I am unsure whether any other Senator has mentioned it, but I do not understand why councillors are the only ones in the entire public service who are not entitled to a pension. It would not be a large pension, given that it would be based on a small salary. A part-time worker in a local authority who works ten hours per week will receive a pension if he or she is there for long enough. It will be a small pension based on a small salary and a limited number of hours, but that person is entitled to something. We have councillors on Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council with 29, 36 or 40 years of service. Many of them have 29 years of service. They put in a large amount of time, practically their whole lives. Many people would not work in any job for that length of time. At the end of it all, there is only a lump sum payment of a gratuity, with nothing for the long term.

Like Senators Victor Boyhan, Jennnifer Murnane O'Connor and so on, I attended the LAMA and AILG conferences. In Dungarvan and Donegal I listened to the Minister of State and the Minister, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, outline the future. I welcome the establishment of a review group, but we must acknowledge that councillors are probably annoyed with certain Members of this House endlessly sending them emails promising them the sun, moon and stars when none of it materialises. There are those of us who have not been sending such emails because we are unsure of what is coming. I hope it is positive, but whatever it is, it needs to be articulated and decided soon. the local elections will be held just over a year from now. I believe 23 May 2019 is the date on which they will be held.

I do not want to repeat a lot of the points that have been made but on the issue of vouched versus unvouched expenses, a lot of the expenses that councillors incur include things like buying raffle tickets or giving prizes for raffles, none of which is vouchable. I am not saying that it can be vouchable but we need to appreciate what an unvouched allowance means and that expenses are expenses. They are incurred because a councillor has incurred them. He or she has telephone and stationery bills, petrol costs, tyre replacement costs, vehicle expenses and so forth. All of these are expenses. No one says of people who happen to work in an office that they got their salary as well as the value of the desk at which they sit, the roof over their heads and the central heating. Apparently, if a person happens to use a room in his or her house as a full-time office, that person cannot claim any allowance for that, even though he or she is deprived of that room. If that person buys a filing cabinet or a desk, there is no allowance for that either.

We need good quality people. We need people to be in local government and not because they are independently wealthy. We want people to be representative of where they live. I strongly urge the Minister of State to consider what Senator Boyhan has referred to as a decent salary, but whatever is delivered should be enough for people to live on so that they are not travelling around the place in the hope of getting some expenses because that is the only way they can sustain their existence. Many councillors are effectively working full-time and are working very hard. We must recognise and appreciate the work they do and reward them appropriately.

I thank the Senators who contributed to this debate. I will try to reference as many of the contributions as possible. The range of views that have been expressed in the House this evening and during the previous discussion on this issue demonstrate to me and to Members of this House the importance of councillor supports and local government functions. I fully appreciate the dedication shown by individual councillors and the hard work that they put in as representatives of their communities. As a former councillor myself, I have an understanding of the challenges they face in carrying out their duties.

While not losing sight of the long-standing tradition of public service, a financial support framework has been put in place to support councillors in carrying out their important work. Following the implementation of local government reforms in 2014, councillors now represent larger electoral areas than previously and are responsible for a broader range of reserved functions. At the same time, overall numbers have been reduced. I have met my colleague, the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, and I am delighted to inform the House that significant progress has been made since we had our previous discussion four or five weeks ago. An agreement has been reached to set up a councillor remuneration review group, chaired by an independent person with an official from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and an official from local government, that will consult councillor groups and other concerned parties. It will commence its work in May and finish by Hallowe'en, a six-month period. The job of the review group is not just about creating a link with the public service. It is also about some of the issues that Senators have raised about scoping the role of a councillor in 2018, a job that has probably never been done at any stage. The group will have six months to do that and to establish a link with the public service.

Some of the contributions today and on the previous day were a bit unusual, to say the very least. I am lucky in that I tend to keep notes of what people say, and five weeks ago Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill expressed the view that councillors in London get £90,000 and that something similar should apply here. I welcome the fact that Senators Horkan and Boyhan have at least suggested a figure that is much more realistic in terms of how much councillors should be paid. On the previous day, a salary of $90,000 in Canada was also given as an example, but it is very unfair of Members of this House to create expectations that cannot be realised. I value the work of councillors and that is where I started myself, politically. None of the speakers here referenced the work that the Department did a little more than a year ago which surveyed councillors on the amount of time they put into the job every week. The average was 26 hours per week, meaning that half of councillors put in less than that time, with the other half putting in more. Notwithstanding the fact that if councillors were paid more, they might be in a position to devote more time to politics, we all know as practitioners that politics is one of those professions that will take up as much time as one can or will devote to it.

On the previous day Senator O'Reilly spoke about councillors being the cornerstone of our democracy, a point echoed by Senator Dolan today. I very much agree with that point. Senator Black made a very pertinent point the last day about the need for a genuine discussion on the role of a councillor. This is something that the Taoiseach has spoken to me about and it will be included in the terms of reference of the review group to be established in May. Senators Craughwell and Boyhan spoke about the need for no more promises. I have not made any promises other than that the review group will be established. I am finally in a position to give a timeframe for that. I certainly agree that the time for soft talk is over but most of the soft talk has emanated from Members of this House rather than from Government on the issue of councillor remuneration. I am determined that when this review is completed, it will be implemented.

Senators Conway-Walsh and Horkan spoke about the need for home offices to be included in the expenses regime, but they are already included in the €5,000 vouched allowance. We need to talk in the real world to both councillors and the public. The defence by Members of this House of unvouched expenses is not just politically unacceptable, it is downright wrong. There will never be unvouched expenses in the future. They do not exist in these Houses anymore and the public has no appetite for unvouched expenses. That means that the system of vouching has to reflect the real expenses that politicians incur and the real costs that they bear. The public deserves that, as do the councillors. I can remember when unvouched expenses were abolished for Oireachtas Members and there was a lot of whingeing by Members at the time. As someone who was audited in the past two years before I became a Minister of State, I can say that it is a hell of an experience but the criteria that applies to Oireachtas Members is now available to councillors. If councillors incur expenses above €2,500, then it is a no-brainer that they would go on the vouched expenses system. The fact that only 3% have opted for that would seem to indicate that many are not incurring such expenses. I hope I am wrong, and perhaps as the new system beds in, many more councillors will opt for it because they will realise that they have other expenses that they have not thought about that will be allowable. I regret to inform the Acting Chairman, Senator Horkan, that raffle tickets will never be an allowable expense for any public representative. There are many things to which public representatives, both local and national, contribute, including when we advertise our availability. Those advertisements are an expression of the openness and availability of public representatives and are allowable expenses, which is only right.

Senator Paddy Burke spoke on the previous day about the need for backdating. While acknowledging some very alarmed looking officials behind me, I would just say that once an adjudication has been made, regardless of whether there is a delay, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform will have the ultimate say. Any payment should be dated from when the decision is made. That is only fair and proper. I note with interest the letter to which Senator Boyhan referred during his contribution. There is a touch of the Mario Draghi about the response from the Minister, Deputy Donohoe. I refer here to Mr. Draghi's famous intervention when he said "noted" the Irish Central Bank's action. The letter is worth reading and rereading.

It states that the issue raised regarding remuneration of city and county councillors is a matter for the Minister, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, to consider in the first instance. That was a clarification that the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government must engage in the work of scoping out the role of a councillor and establishing the basis on which there would be a link with the public service. It then goes to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform for approval or otherwise in the sense that it is the group responsible when it comes to expenditure of public moneys. I believe the letter was very useful, even though from the way it is written it appears almost deliberately not to be useful.

I was delighted to assist the Minister of State with it. I gave it to him.

On the previous day Senator Ó Ríordáin spoke at length about the huge number of retirements from councils he served on between 2004 and 2011. He is right. All of us would have experience of people who left. Sometimes people leave because they just want to get out of local government, whether for family or employment reasons or whatever. In more recent times, however, people who may have had a different view of local government before they were elected discovered that it is a very time-consuming job and that it is not suitable for them. That is why it is remuneration levels in its entirety, and I am talking about any communications Senators make with councillors. It is not just about the pay but also about the current expenses system. Councillors do not have any supports for secretarial assistance, as Senator Buttimer mentioned, or research. All those issues must be in the pot, so to speak, in addition to a service councillors do not have but that is available to Deputies. The distinguished Members of the Upper House do not have it because they do not have constituencies. I refer to an allowance-----

It is just the whole of Ireland.

-----for travel within their Dáil constituency. For councillors who have vast electoral areas, some provision to acknowledge those costs must be considered by this group.

On the previous day Senator Mark Daly raised the issue of the Revenue Commissioners. Other Senators have spoken about the public sector travel rates that apply to councillors. A recent adjudication by the Revenue Commissioners, which was circulated to Senators, stated that any rates of travel paid above the public service rate are liable to tax. The best way of delivering an appropriate system for local representatives is to try to ensure they get the range of services that are available to national politicians. However, we do not want to arrive at a situation where mileage expenses are taxed because they are deemed to be above the necessary rate for such mileage.

On the previous day Senator Ó Domhnaill spoke about the £90,000 for councillors in London. I admire his bottle but I suspect the figure would not be anywhere in that region.

Senator Dolan spoke about the critical position of councillors and said that the next group the cynics would come after would be Members of the Oireachtas. I think the cynics have been there and gone, but they might come back again.

I do not think they are gone, but anyway. It is not to be encouraged.

They are never too far away. Does the Government want proper local government? Absolutely. The current system in its entirety in terms of the supports for councillors is insufficient and is the reason we need to examine the role of a councillor and remunerate accordingly.

What has to be taken from the work done by the Department on surveying the amount of time councillors put into the job is that a councillor is not a full-time position. Some people who are on groups or bodies in other organisations are able to make it a full-time position. We all know that, in terms of time and effort, being a councillor is more than a full-time position, although I was interested in Senator Boyhan's story about somebody who rang a councillor on Christmas Day about their cable TV.

It was Senator Horkan.

I do not think we will ever be able to deal with such claims. I got a call once on Christmas Day about water, but that was a legitimate council related matter.

I was making the point that one becomes the first point of call for everything and anything.

Sorry, I missed that. That is fair enough.

When was the phone call made about the water? Was Phil Hogan the Minister at the time?

No. It was about 2000. My father answered the phone and I will not say what he said to the constituent who, I hasten to add, was his cousin.

Senator Murnane O'Connor is right, and others have expressed the same view. Councillors want to help make their communities better. It is what motivates all of us, at least at the start of our careers in politics. When I stood for the council there had not been a councillor in my area for 35 years. I was probably elected because everybody voted to elect somebody locally.

On the need for additional powers for councillors, this is a contentious issue. My officials and I had a meeting with some of the councillors' representative groups a number of months ago at which that request was made. The representative groups could not respond with any additional powers they thought should be given to councillors. That was shocking.

Will the Minister of State repeat that? I could not hear him.

The representative groups could not outline additional powers that should be given to councillors in the presence of the Minister and his officials, which is a shocking indictment of-----

Absolutely. Extra reserve functions were given under the reforms brought in on the previous occasion and there are certainly other areas that should be given additional powers. As part of the review of the boundary areas, which will be published in June, there is also the knock-on, which will have to be a decision of Government in terms of giving funding directly to municipal districts or to town districts rather than going centrally. I am very much in favour of that. I refer to the Carlow town situation where the town council got a block grant on roads, footpaths and so on.

It is to give back that sense of autonomy. I believe the previous local government reforms went very far in that the size of the areas created were too big. We changed those in the terms of reference under which the review group is operating. I fundamentally believe, and I said it previously here, that the decision to ensure one person, one vote in a local election, whether one lives in Carlow town or in the countryside, is the right approach. Some people got two votes. Others got one. That was unfair. It is how we marry the urban governance with the county council. That piece is being refined at present.

Senator Murnane O'Connor said she firmly believes that I am not listening to councillors. I listen to councillors every day of the week but I do not have a magic wand.

It was to try to get this process under way.

We are counting on the Minister of State.

Senator Boyhan said I met Fine Gael councillors in a private meeting in Dungarvan. They were very happy that day.

Sorry, but to correct the Minister of State, I said the Minister, but that is to be encouraged.

Okay. I think they will be quite happy that the process is now taking shape. Senator Wilson gave out about the €1,000 being taxable. The intention was always that it would be taxable. It was always the position of the Department that it was likely to be taxable but we were waiting on an adjudication by the Revenue Commissioners. He gave out about the €5,000 vouched expenses. It is a false hope to be giving councillors that we will have unvouched political expenses in the future. That day is done. It is about how we make the vouched system more usable and applicable to their costs. We have to stop talking about going back to unvouched expenses because it will never happen. I referred to the public sector mileage rates in my comments.

Senator Horkan said he does not understand the reason councillors are the only group in the public service that are not entitled to a pension. I agree fully. That is one of the reasons behind bringing in this independently chaired review. Councillors are not in the public service. Even some Members of this-----

Yes. There are some Members of this House who said that we should stick with the link between Senators and councillors. Absolutely not. If councillors are to get the PRSI entitlements to get the pension entitlements, this link between councillors and a grade in the public service is the crucial step in getting the other ancillary benefits for councillors, as well as the pay issue.

This is about much more than pay. It is about recognition and about saying that, as a councillor, one is a public servant. Some have been councillors for 40 years and the Senator listed a few, I could name a few myself who are there a long time, and there must be a pension at the end of it for them. It will mean, probably in the initial years at least, that there will be a hybrid system. I suspect that we will not be able to do retrospective pensions for everyone, but there should be a combination of the current lump sum with other intricacies, which are to be worked out by this review group.

I want to finish by saying that I have never given any promises on the subject, other than that I think there should be a link between councillors and the public service directly, not just through Members of this House. A review should happen. I am glad to say we are going to have the review and it will be from May to October 2018 with a view towards as immediate an implementation as we can possibly have. I suspect that other letters might have to be drafted about that in the future, but we need to get the first stage of the process completed, which is to scope out the role of councillors, what they should be doing in the future and paying them a proper, full remuneration package that is commensurate with the work they do and the role they have.

I thank the Minister of State for his reply and I thank all the Senators for contributing to the debate. When is it proposed to sit again?

At 10.30 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The Seanad adjourned at 6.02 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 25 April 2018.
Top
Share