Seanad debates

Thursday, 29 March 2018

Councillors' Conditions: Statements

 

10:30 am

Photo of Gerard CraughwellGerard Craughwell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

In the same debate, the then Minister of State acknowledged that the annual representational payment was not fully commensurate with the workload of councillors. Having been a local authority member, I am sure that the current Minister of State would agree with that. Indeed, we could not pay them. As my colleague just pointed out, it is a 24-7 job. One councillor told me that he could not go to the toilet without someone standing beside him and telling him about a problem that person wanted solved. That, I am afraid, is part and parcel of local representation.

We were told in the same debate in 2015 that the then Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government had indicated his intention to start a review of local authorities following the passing of the 2014 Act. The review was to be broadly representative and the advisory group would include within its working group members of the Association of Irish Local Government, . That debate was almost three years ago to the day, but we have still not seen the establishment of that group.

Let us deal with the real issue, that being, the money people are paid. Something like 30% of councillors are dependent on the representational payment. It is all they have. That is their employment. We have had to bring this country kicking and screaming to change councillors' conditions. I have with me the rapporteur's report that I presented on class K PRSI. Until it was presented, councillors were paying class K PRSI and getting sweet damn all for 4% of their incomes. I made the point this morning that the same rate applied to Senators, but we have not had the guts to stand up and do anything about it yet. Following the report, the then Minister - the current Taoiseach - changed councillors to class S PRSI. At least now there is a pension for those who are young enough to benefit from it, but what about the ones who have been serving their communities for years, are well past 66 years of age and have no pensions despite having paid PRSI for years? It is wrong in every sense of the word.

There has been a blurring of the lines. We have pay, allowances and expenses. The problem is that expenses have been used to augment the income of councillors. Doing so has been to the detriment of the vehicles they drive. As the Minister of State pointed out a few moments ago, expenses are only meant to recoup out-of-pocket losses.They are calculated to cover tax, insurance, servicing and replacing vehicles, replacing tyres and all these things. If that money is used to pay the ESB bill, it is being misused because it is not being set aside to replace the vehicle, for example. We have to get back to identifying where everything lies. We have to pay councillors a proper salary for the job they do. We should separate them from Members of this House and align them to a member of the public service, perhaps a clerical officer, an assistant clerical officer or someone like that. We should put them in at that level. Their remuneration will move up and down in accordance with public service pay.

County councillors have been promised that something will be done for them for the almost four years I have been in this House. They have been told we are going to look after them and we are going to do this, that and the other. The truth of the matter is that if we were willing to do something here and if the political will was there, it would have been done by now. I believe the Minister of State has the political will, is willing to put his neck on the line and take whatever public criticism will come with looking after those who serve their communities.

Why should we be embarrassed about it? These people work around the clock. My colleague asked who people went to during the recent storms. One county councillor told me that on Christmas morning a family arrived at his house to tell him they had no electricity and could not cook their dinner. He said what could he do but bring them in and give them a dinner. That is what public service at local representation level is about. We need to represent and recognise what is being done.

I want no more promises and no more statements saying we are going to look after councillors. By the way, I want a detailed explanation sent to councillors about what is meant by "travelling expenses". It was never meant to be a form of income. We need councillors to know that and to stop playing games with them. It is grossly unfair. They represent their communities not just on the councils but in the HSE and on university and institutes of technology boards, although, importantly, we have reduced the power of county councillors. Even in the recent Technological Universities Bill, we reduced the number of county councillors on the boards of technological universities. We are stripping away more and more power from these people.

If a group is being put together to look at the terms and conditions of employment of county councillors, we must first determine if county councillors are employed. We must give them a salary but, more importantly, the review group must have representatives of local authorities on it. We must also look at the allowances and the way they are paid and distributed across a council. We must make sure that there is fairness and nobody suffers in the long term. Everybody must get a chance at being the chair of a board or of a strategic policy committee, SPC. We need to be far more equal and egalitarian in the way we look after these people. What we do not need are promises of great things to come which have not happened so far. The ball is at the feet of the Minister of State. We will be looking to him-----

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.