Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I should have taken the opportunity when I was speaking earlier to acknowledge the presence of the councillors in the Visitors' Gallery. I thank the AILG and LAMA for their engagement on these issues. We have had multiple meetings where we have had honest and blunt discussions with both organisations on what we need to try to do.Those meetings have been honest, blunt discussions about what we need to try and do here. They have reflected the concerns of many councillors around the country through representative bodies that have been very effective in putting arguments together.

There is a broader perspective that I think we all need to consider. My job is to provide good local governance in Ireland or to at least put a policy framework in place to ensure that we can, and to work in partnership with local authorities right across the country, in cities and rural areas, in suburbia and so on. We have many challenges to solve together and we have just come through a period where there has been a real shortage of financial resources for many local authorities and indeed nationally. When we make choices here about how we spend money, we need to think about all of the competing demands that are looking for and deserve increased resources. That is the context in which I am making a decision to spend and commit more taxpayers' money to support councillors in the work that they are doing. I am also trying to look after people who are living on our streets. I am also trying to get a new housing strategy up and running. I am also trying to get social housing provision intact. We are trying to get roads, footpaths and all the other things that local authorities rightly have to try and deliver for the constituents that they represent.

It would be very strange if we were to make dramatic changes on remuneration, supports and pay at a time when resources are still very scarce for a lot of basic services. People would rightly question my priorities if I did that. That is why I have gone through a process that has been very robust and transparent where I have asked others in the Department and outside the Department to look in an independent way at the role the councillors play, the importance of that role, and whether or not they can function in that role in a fair way with the financial pressures that are put on them. Of course it would be a popular thing for me to make dramatic changes. We are currently spending nearly €28 million a year to support councillors through representative payments, which is not actually a salary, but a representative payment. A distinction was made when that was put in place. It is approximately €16,500. It is true that it is linked to a Senator's salary. That is still a considerable amount of money and we are proposing to add to that, with approximately €1.8 million for improved levels of support, primarily through a vouched expenses system. We also recognise that there is a statutory legal change in the responsibilities that some councillors are now required to accommodate through a municipal districts structure.

I am not trying to create two tiers of councillors. This is not adding to the representative payment. This is a separate allowance, just like if somebody is on the Council of Europe, or if somebody is chair of a committee that has an allowance that comes with it. It is a separate allowance, because of an increased statutory responsibility that goes with it. I am not advocating and I am not proposing to increase the representative payment for rural councillors by €1,000 and not for city councillors. That is not what we are proposing. What we are proposing is an allowance to match the increased statutory responsibility that is there for councillors that now have to make the municipal structures work. I really hope that city councillors do not take this up the wrong way because I know many city councillors work just as hard as councillors in county areas. However, if one looks at actual numbers in terms of changes that were made, while the vast majority of parts of the country have seen a significant reduction in the number of county councillors in particular, by more than 50% in some areas, if one looks at Dublin, the number of councillors has increased from 139 to 183. We have seen big changes moving both ways. That increase in Dublin was justified because the population has increased significantly, so I am not suggesting otherwise.

What I am saying is that there is a consequence to abolishing town councils. The consequence of the policy of having town councils, in towns represented by councils, being replaced by a municipal district system and structure, is that there is a statutory legal responsibility on some councillors and not on others in the country because municipal districts were not rolled out in urban areas. All we are doing here is reflecting the fact that there should be some recognition of that increased statutory allowance. I am not creating a difference here. The difference is there. It has been legislated for. It is part of the last local government reform process. I am simply reflecting that now in a €1,000 allowance that reflects what town councillors would have received on an annual basis in recognition for the work that they are doing on town councils.

We are in a process of reviewing the three cities with city councils that are subject to not being able to access the allowance. Local authority structures there are all under review. In Galway, we have a report recommending a merger between the city and county, for example. We have to move through that process. Many councillors do not want to do that. Some want to do that. We have a process by which we are going to finalise how that is going to work. Undoubtedly, that is going to impact some change on Galway city, and if there is a change in statutory responsibilities, then I will respond to that when that happens, by recognising that and with allowances. Likewise, I am going to get recommendations in the next couple of months around whether Cork city and county should be merged, or if not, if there could be some new structure for the relationship between the city and county. There will be change in Cork just like there will be change in Galway because there needs to be. We will have to work out the form that that takes together.

In the context of that change, if we ask increased statutory responsibilities of city councillors, then of course we will have to reflect that in any future allowances. Likewise, as other parties will know, we are working on changes in Dublin too, to see if we can have a directly-elected mayor in Dublin. We are working in particular with Fianna Fáil and the Green Party on that, but I am sure Sinn Féin, the Labour Party and others will input into that process as well. When there is structural change and when that has a knock-on impact on the statutory responsibilities of councillors, we cannot just make that change and expect the councillors will adapt with no financial recognition for that change. All I am reflecting on the municipal district allowance is what has happened historically which was not recognised with regard to the supports that need to come with that increased statutory responsibility. On the other side, which is something that I hope everybody will benefit from, is a system of a more realistic assessment of what it costs a councillor to operate on a day-to-day and week-to-week basis, for communicating with the people that expect instant responses and so on. I have heard what the Senators have to say, and I hope I have shown that when I come into this House, I do listen to what is said.

Senator Noone, although she has left the House, raised the issue of councillors essentially not being able to get a doctor's note for being at meetings and needing to meet a certain quota in order to be able to get basic supports. We will look at that. Unless there is some legal impediment to me changing it, we will change it. It does not seem to me to be a fair system and if it is-----