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

We are being collegiate this morning. We can swap around. I welcome the legislation. It is interesting that, in the room next door, the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Gender Equality is meeting to discuss the implementation of the recommendations of the Citizens' Assembly. In the context of those efforts to improve the rights of women through that process, it is remarkable that there was still a category of women who were not eligible for maternity leave. Putting that to rights is a really important step.

The role of the local authorities is very interesting. We have changed it, including in the last 12 months, but for many of us in this room it was effectively a job with a salary of €16,000 a year. When the financial emergency measures in the public interest, FEMPI, cuts were implemented, I remember asking the chief executive's office what the equivalent cut was for other staff members in the local authority who were on the same rate. At the time, councillors were paid at a quarter of the rate for Senators. The chief executive's office told me that the authority had no employees who were paid as little as councillors. The porters in the office who greeted us at the front door were paid more and had a better pension scheme than many of the councillors who were coming in and out of City Hall. That is not meant to in any way denigrate the rights of the porters but it demonstrates where the councillor was in the scheme of things. We have made great strides in improving the salaries of local authority members. If the media covers that, it is always about politicians getting more pay but, of course, we all know that is not the case. When you give people more pay, it means they can provide more of their time. It is not that people are part-time. I have never agreed with councillors being referred to as part-time because they always end up juggling something else. Improvements to pay and conditions for councillors are really important for our local democracy because, in their absence, unelected officials would be left making decisions. If councillors are not sufficiently resourced to have the time and space to hold those officials to account, you will not get the democracy that is needed. There are a number of unusual provisions in this Bill, including the idea of being able to substitute another into your place. People might think that is a bit undemocratic but it gives the maximum flexibility to the member who is taking the leave.

Are there any restrictions regarding the party issuing a certificate for a replacement such as there are in the case of co-option? In the case of a co-option, a party must issue a certificate to say that a given person is the party candidate. The council no longer votes on this although there was a time when it had to. In the case of Independent members passing away, in some local authorities it is possible to name a nominator. How would it differ for an Independent member? Is it entirely within the control of the councillor in question? While I agree with a party mandate for co-option, in this case the individual councillor must be given the exclusive ability to nominate a successor because that replacement is for such a short period of time and because such strong working relationships will be required. That might be worth clarifying.

I am always happy to speak on behalf of councillors so I will use this opportunity to encourage the Minister of State to go further. Local authority members have a local authority members gratuity scheme. Many members find themselves listed in the newspaper as having received a lump sum of a certain amount when they turn a certain age but if you go to the market with €30,000 or €40,000 and try to get a pension scheme, you will probably get a pension of approximately €8 or €9 a month. We could go further. We could make local authority members eligible for the occupational pension schemes of their authorities. They may also be members of occupational pension schemes through other employment. That is something each member can decide on. I can think of plenty of councillors including Councillor Christy Burke, an independent member on Dublin City Council, who have given decades of service. It seems wrong that Councillor Burke is not able to join the occupational pension scheme of an organisation he has dedicated so much of his working life to. I apologise for naming Councillor Burke as an individual but he commands a lot of respect across the spectrum. There are many councillors in that position and who could easily join the occupational pension scheme if some changes were made. There is an argument to be made in this regard. The local authority deducts USC from councillor's payments. The Pensions Authority states that, where a body deducts USC and other taxes from a salary, that body is deemed to be an employer and therefore has pension responsibilities. It is one further step the Minister of State could take. I only mention it given that he has been so progressive in extending other rights to councillors. It would be one further step. I apologise for leaving the Minister of State so little time.