John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I wish to add to this debate. I spent 25 years in local government from 1979. I served half the time with my father. Councillor McEntire met him over the years. I have a deep understanding of local government and the commitment people make to improve their communities. However, in the context of the Bill, this is a national issue. Councillors from all over the country will, therefore, rely heavily on the two bodies that represent them. I wish to put that in context because this House has changed dramatically over the years and the responsibility of the national representative bodies, inside or outside politics, has become far more important than it used to be, particularly in the context of influencing legislation such as the Bill under discussion. On a Tuesday or Wednesday, one could meet a lobbyist from any quarter in this building. Lobbyists are constantly making efforts to change Bills, insert provisions in them and make them better for their own sector. The delegates' organisations have to be far more vigilant in this regard. I say that constructively and in the context of how this Bill was developed and came before us.

There are measures in this Bill that I believe the delegates have not addressed. They need to be addressed. Senator Paddy Burke stated there is a need for the delegates to examine the Bill in the context of suggesting amendments or improvements. The Bill does not just affect local authorities but also all of us in these Houses. The Bill is about the office of a public sector standards commissioner. One can say what one likes about SIPO but it has been helpful in its interpretation of matters and one can speak to its officials. The proposed body is a different office. A range of powers are to be given to the commissioner that are way above and beyond those of SIPO. One needs to understand that. The delegates highlighted in their contributions how this Bill affects them practically but they should examine the strength and powers of the commissioner also because, regardless of our discussion, this legislation will be implemented in some shape or form. All of us in the room acknowledge the reasons it has to be implemented.

The delegates stated income in excess of €2,600 is a declarable interest. They referred to the source of any income related to a consultant or adviser and to contracts and interests of public officials. The legislation sets out the incomes in excess of which one has to file a report. The legislation refers to shares, bonds and holdings, in addition to public and private information. The body of the Bill refers to any interest being an interest of the spouse or child of the public official concerned.

The person is being asked not only to account for themselves but for others who may not want to be accountable to them. That is a fact. It further suggests the values and what they exceed and how they should be reported. It refers to ad hocarrangements if a person wants to make a declaration in the course of the year. That only draws attention to something that can be interpreted as something the person did wrong. I do not understand why it cannot be a year on year declaration when there is an understanding within the Bill of the problems that can be caused, whether by mischief or otherwise or the interpretation of the press or otherwise. None of that seems to be understood in the Bill. It seems to be a case that we are all guilty of something or other because of the sins of the past, not because of what we are doing today.

To highlight what I regard as the extreme parts of the Bill, it refers to examining the interests of people other than a person's immediate family, a brother or a sister. I know what mine would tell me. Part of the Bill which we have questioned involves a disclosure on legal or medical services, including psychiatric and psychological services. It goes on to deal with the powers of the commissioner.

This meeting is the start of a process. There is much more in the Bill that the delegates have not had time to examine and that will have a serious impact on their members and the Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas. I want to disclose. I want to comply with the Standards in Public Office Act 2001, but I do not want someone to peer into aspects of my life such as bank balances and current accounts. There is a limit to all of this. Members of the Houses must examine it, but the delegates' organisations must examine it in far more detail and come back with their suggestions, amendments or appropriate commentary on its overall direction.

Time is important because there is urgency on the part of the Minister and others in the House to bring the Bill to a conclusion. It is a start of the examination. We will send the Official Report on proceedings at this meeting to the Department and the Minister and the delegates' first go at their submission, but we will say they may come back with more information. Each political party will be encouraged to examine the Bill and put forward its amendments.

I acknowledge the work councillors do. It is underrated and not appreciated. The method the Oireachtas has come at during the tenure of successive Governments is not fair in respect of how they are remunerated and their expenses offset. It should be far more clear andtransparent and show more appreciation of the work councillors do. That should be reflected in how they are paid. The more democracy has developed at local and national level the greater the onus has been on local government members to comply with all of this stuff. We need to recognise the cost of that compliance and the onerous task it now is.