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

I thank the Senators who contributed to this debate. I will try to reference as many of the contributions as possible. The range of views that have been expressed in the House this evening and during the previous discussion on this issue demonstrate to me and to Members of this House the importance of councillor supports and local government functions. I fully appreciate the dedication shown by individual councillors and the hard work that they put in as representatives of their communities. As a former councillor myself, I have an understanding of the challenges they face in carrying out their duties.

While not losing sight of the long-standing tradition of public service, a financial support framework has been put in place to support councillors in carrying out their important work. Following the implementation of local government reforms in 2014, councillors now represent larger electoral areas than previously and are responsible for a broader range of reserved functions. At the same time, overall numbers have been reduced. I have met my colleague, the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, and I am delighted to inform the House that significant progress has been made since we had our previous discussion four or five weeks ago. An agreement has been reached to set up a councillor remuneration review group, chaired by an independent person with an official from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and an official from local government, that will consult councillor groups and other concerned parties. It will commence its work in May and finish by Hallowe'en, a six-month period. The job of the review group is not just about creating a link with the public service. It is also about some of the issues that Senators have raised about scoping the role of a councillor in 2018, a job that has probably never been done at any stage. The group will have six months to do that and to establish a link with the public service.

Some of the contributions today and on the previous day were a bit unusual, to say the very least. I am lucky in that I tend to keep notes of what people say, and five weeks ago Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill expressed the view that councillors in London get £90,000 and that something similar should apply here. I welcome the fact that Senators Horkan and Boyhan have at least suggested a figure that is much more realistic in terms of how much councillors should be paid. On the previous day, a salary of $90,000 in Canada was also given as an example, but it is very unfair of Members of this House to create expectations that cannot be realised. I value the work of councillors and that is where I started myself, politically. None of the speakers here referenced the work that the Department did a little more than a year ago which surveyed councillors on the amount of time they put into the job every week. The average was 26 hours per week, meaning that half of councillors put in less than that time, with the other half putting in more. Notwithstanding the fact that if councillors were paid more, they might be in a position to devote more time to politics, we all know as practitioners that politics is one of those professions that will take up as much time as one can or will devote to it.

On the previous day Senator O'Reilly spoke about councillors being the cornerstone of our democracy, a point echoed by Senator Dolan today. I very much agree with that point. Senator Black made a very pertinent point the last day about the need for a genuine discussion on the role of a councillor. This is something that the Taoiseach has spoken to me about and it will be included in the terms of reference of the review group to be established in May. Senators Craughwell and Boyhan spoke about the need for no more promises. I have not made any promises other than that the review group will be established. I am finally in a position to give a timeframe for that. I certainly agree that the time for soft talk is over but most of the soft talk has emanated from Members of this House rather than from Government on the issue of councillor remuneration. I am determined that when this review is completed, it will be implemented.

Senators Conway-Walsh and Horkan spoke about the need for home offices to be included in the expenses regime, but they are already included in the €5,000 vouched allowance. We need to talk in the real world to both councillors and the public. The defence by Members of this House of unvouched expenses is not just politically unacceptable, it is downright wrong. There will never be unvouched expenses in the future. They do not exist in these Houses anymore and the public has no appetite for unvouched expenses. That means that the system of vouching has to reflect the real expenses that politicians incur and the real costs that they bear. The public deserves that, as do the councillors. I can remember when unvouched expenses were abolished for Oireachtas Members and there was a lot of whingeing by Members at the time. As someone who was audited in the past two years before I became a Minister of State, I can say that it is a hell of an experience but the criteria that applies to Oireachtas Members is now available to councillors. If councillors incur expenses above €2,500, then it is a no-brainer that they would go on the vouched expenses system. The fact that only 3% have opted for that would seem to indicate that many are not incurring such expenses. I hope I am wrong, and perhaps as the new system beds in, many more councillors will opt for it because they will realise that they have other expenses that they have not thought about that will be allowable. I regret to inform the Acting Chairman, Senator Horkan, that raffle tickets will never be an allowable expense for any public representative. There are many things to which public representatives, both local and national, contribute, including when we advertise our availability. Those advertisements are an expression of the openness and availability of public representatives and are allowable expenses, which is only right.

Senator Paddy Burke spoke on the previous day about the need for backdating. While acknowledging some very alarmed looking officials behind me, I would just say that once an adjudication has been made, regardless of whether there is a delay, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform will have the ultimate say. Any payment should be dated from when the decision is made. That is only fair and proper. I note with interest the letter to which Senator Boyhan referred during his contribution. There is a touch of the Mario Draghi about the response from the Minister, Deputy Donohoe. I refer here to Mr. Draghi's famous intervention when he said "noted" the Irish Central Bank's action. The letter is worth reading and rereading.It states that the issue raised regarding remuneration of city and county councillors is a matter for the Minister, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, to consider in the first instance. That was a clarification that the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government must engage in the work of scoping out the role of a councillor and establishing the basis on which there would be a link with the public service. It then goes to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform for approval or otherwise in the sense that it is the group responsible when it comes to expenditure of public moneys. I believe the letter was very useful, even though from the way it is written it appears almost deliberately not to be useful.