John Paul Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

It has been my intention all along that this review will be completed and that the interim report will give people who are considering running - be it for parties or as independents - an idea of the position before the end of this year. The final report will be competed in the spring. That has always been my intention. I cannot really direct Sara Moorhead. I had a preliminary meeting with her to lay out my position and to discuss public submissions and councillors' submissions, as referred to by the Senator. She is very keen for the widest possible range of views to be submitted.

Sometimes when one reads contributions by Ministers from different Departments, the phrase "stakeholders" is used. Who is or is not a stakeholder is considered. When it comes to councillors everybody is a stakeholder because everybody has a local councillor or six, depending on where a person lives.

The basic pay of €16,800 for councillors is low and this is why the review is happening. I am trying to do my basic maths and I believe it is below the minimum wage for the hours that many councillors put in. The Department conducted a survey of councillors last year directly though the local authorities. More than 50% of councillors responded and said they were spending 26 or 27 hours on council business per week. This emphasises that it is not a full-time role. Some people spend full hours on it. While they should be remunerated on the basis that they hold part-time positions, councillors should not be paid less than they would get in the private sector for working the number of hours to which I refer. If Sara Moorhead's report comes back with findings in that regard, it is my intention to implement them.

On submissions from councillors, as well as submissions from the general public, there have already been face-to-face meetings with the representative groups. Ms Moorhead will survey councillors and she will try to dig down deeper into that 26 or 27 hours. Part of the scope of the review will be the genuine question regarding what we should and should not pay for in the work done by councillors. I suspect that we should be paying for a great part of the work, but perhaps there are elements of the work that do not represent value for taxpayer's money. I put it to Senator Boyhan that the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform is not always wrong. This is an opportunity to have an in-depth look at what councillors. Ms Moorhead is determined to do that. The review will not be informed by just the usual stakeholders, it will also involve the wider public and the local authorities. On the basis of what was said at the preliminary meeting held nearly a month ago, I understand that councillors will be surveyed.

The Senator referred to the 12 emails. I understand the point he is making because promises have been made over the years. I would be disappointed if people thought "Not again, more promises". This review is, however, being conducted by an outside person who will be an independent chair, which is what councillors sought from the start. This person has no skin in the game but has a deep interest in the State and in how public affairs here might operate. She will come back with her independent report. She will issue an interim report in October or November and a full report in March. I cannot spell matters out more clearly other than to say that I absolutely intend to implement it. Earlier, I included a caveat to the effect that dealing with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform is not a simple matter. However, there is a political will to grasp the nettle and it is my job to try to ensure the report's recommendations are implemented.