Alan Farrell (Dublin Fingal, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the introduction of the Bill and I commend the Minister of State, his officials, the Department, the working group and the Oireachtas committee on the work they have done on this. It is a poor reflection that 100 years after the commencement of our democracy, we are only introducing this now. To promote this sort of political inclusivity and accessibility, we have to make this Parliament and, indeed, local authorities more accessible, amenable and available for people of all walks of life, not just men and women.

We must also do so for persons from different ethnic backgrounds, especially given the considerable influx of migrants to this country over the past 30 years. I am very proud to represent a county which, back when I was mayor in 2008, had 105 nationalities represented within it. That diversity leads to diversity of thinking and systems. If local authorities and places such as this are not able to change their ways, they become cold places for those individuals who feel cut off from their own local authorities or from the Parliament. Thus, it is important we change.

While I welcome this Bill, we still have nothing permanent set up for this House or the Seanad. Additional supports have been put in place and an ad hoc arrangement has twice been made for a member of the Cabinet, but this is not good enough. We need to amend the Constitution appropriately in order that we can legislate for such matters appropriately and get it done. With respect to the Minister of State, Deputy Peter Burke, I do not expect a Minister of State to do it. However, I expect the Cabinet, given the importance of this issue, to actually take action and do it.

There are several, most likely important, constitutional changes this Government can make on foot of recommendations from both the constitutional convention and these Houses. They could be run on the same day in order to bring the cost down. A constitutional amendment which relates to politicians will probably not get a considerable turnout. If we put it in with something more meaningful for the general public, let us hope we can make those sorts of changes.

I complimented the Minister of State for the work that has been done. I have been a proud Member of this House for 12 years and I was a councillor for almost seven years before that. I cannot believe it has been 18 years since I was first elected to local government. All of us know politics is not an easy business. All of us know the sort of courage and determination it takes to put one's name on a ballot paper. I was just thinking about how I was completely oblivious as to what lay in front of me that evening - I think it was Saturday, 15 May 2004 - when I got a phone call which changed my life. Three and a half weeks later, I became a councillor.

I can assure the House that if I had been a 26-year-old woman at that time, my life most likely would have taken a similar course to that of the person I have been with for almost 27 years. I can absolutely be assured that in such circumstances - if I had a family at the same time as my wife - it would have interfered with my ability to run in elections; most likely, with my ability to get elected to this House and, potentially, even the local authority. That is not right. We have made very positive steps in the past number of years towards equality but there are still a few barriers to go.

Other Members have mentioned that 562 women candidates ran in the last local elections. This was a very modest increase or improvement of 3% on the position at the previous local elections. We need to make bigger strides and steps. Our population is rising. I know the Minister of State's Department will undoubtedly start to look at local authority boundaries and say there is under-representation and over-representation, as was the case when the then Minister, Mr. Hogan, did it back in 2012. That was a welcome modernisation of our democracy at local level. We are coming closer to the area where we would consider that again. It gives us an opportunity to re-evaluate local authorities and perhaps add 50 or 100 councillors to the national mix, thereby affording an opportunity for new, fresh thinking and faces to come into local government. That is to be welcomed.

I will talk about certain aspects of the Bill about which I have slight concerns. The inclusion by the Minister of section 1(a)(ii)(III), which provides that "a member of a local authority shall be deemed to be an employee of the local authority employed under a contract of service for a fixed term", could have an unintended consequence. Inadvertently, what the Minister has done is to help 900-odd councillors to apply for a mortgage. Up to now, they have had to assume the services manager within the local authority would sign a piece of paper to say the councillor was a fixed-term employee because, technically, the councillor was not and the services manager did not have to do so. That is a barrier in itself. When I was a member of LAMA in approximately 2009, it made that recommendation and to see it included now is a welcome step in the right direction. That sort of thing needs to be considered by the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage because it is important. It is not just about the salary of a councillor, which has been dramatically improved following the Sara Moorhead report. We have to recognise that it is a career for many people. When one looks at the tenure of some councillors, one sees it is a career. It should be a career. It is not the third division of Irish political or democratic football. We are all on the same level because we are all equally important. Without local government, government would not function properly.

I have considerable concerns, which have been voiced by Deputies Higgins and Bacik, with regard to temporary absences and the party from which the member was elected then having the say. What if there is a scenario in which the individual leaves due to bullying? It has happened. More than 100 members of local authorities, to the best of my knowledge, have resigned since the last local election. Some of those have cited bullying. It is not a party political issue but is specific to this Bill. Does it go back? Should it go back? Should the individual not have the say as to who should be the co-optee, especially if it is only maternity leave? I say "only" maternity leave but if the individual is only taking six months or thereabouts such as in the case of a short-term illness, it is not right. That needs to be changed. There must be the same rules for a non-party member. What if the non-party member joins a party? There has to be equity. If we equalise it for one, we should equalise it for the other. It should be the choice of the councillor, rather than the party. On a very regular basis, we debate matters in this House that are then placed on the agenda of the Oireachtas to be agreed without debate. If we are legislating for such matters, we should legislate for the councillor to nominate a replacement and that person, subject to certain criteria, to be the councillor's replacement without debate.

There is a considerable disparity between the standing orders of various local authorities. The Minister of State knows that as well as I do. It is important we recognise that fact and put it into the legislation in order that the lines cannot be read between or through because they will be. Local authorities, especially longer-standing members of local authorities, might not necessarily like being dictated to by this House. However, in the interests of democracy, the person who is elected should choose his or her replacement and it should be accepted by the local authority. Going back to the 2004 Government-----

See this speech in context