John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Mr. Bobby O'Connell, General-Secretary, Local Authority Members Association, Mr. Luie McEntire, Vice-President, Association of Irish Local Government and the other attendees.

Do Mr. O'Connell and Mr. McEntire wish to make statements? Yes. I shall read the note on privilege for the benefit of those present.

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by the Chairman to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. Witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

I call on Mr. McEntire to make his opening statement.

Mr. Luie McEntire:

We hope we can be of assistance to the committee on its deliberations of the Public Sector Standards Bill 2015.

Our submission and presence here today, is a joint appearance by both the Association of Irish Local Government and the Local Authority Members Association, as the two national representative bodies that represent local elected members. The delegation is jointly led by me and Councillor Bobby O'Connell. I am a member of Longford County Council and Vice-President of the Association of Irish Local Government. Councillor Bobby O’Connell is the General Secretary of the Local Authority Members Association and a member of Kerry County Council. Both of the associations thank the committee Chairman and members for giving us an opportunity to discuss the Bill with them and the implications that the Bill will have for elected members at local authority level.

First, we wish to clarify with the committee that neither association held meetings with officials in the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government on the Bill, as has been referenced previously by the Department of Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform. The Bill was referenced at meetings, in general terms, that the AILG had with officials from the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government. The Bill was mentioned in the context of the AILG's elected members' training programme and the possibility of providing further training in the area of ethics and governance for elected members.

However, at no stage was the Bill or its contents and possible implications discussed in detail by officials from the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government with either representative body. Indeed, we would not expect it to be as the Department did not propose the Bill. Therefore, we welcome the opportunity to highlight our concerns about the Bill. We wish to confirm that we are available to meet the officials from the government reform unit in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to discuss our concerns if they so wish.

It is important to state that while both associations have some concerns with certain aspects of the draft Bill, and that while we welcome any measures to strengthen the standards that the public rightfully expect from people in public office, we reiterate that the vast majority of the 949 local councillors across the country are hardworking men and women whose only interest is to serve the communities that have elected them. We welcome a robust and transparent system for the declaration of assets and business interests for public representatives. However, we feel that some of the measures in the Bill may place additional extensive and onerous obligations and responsibilities on our members.

We would like to make some specific points about some provisions in the Bill and their possible implications for our members. At this stage I would like to apologise on behalf of the president of the AILG, Mr. Damien Geoghegan. Unfortunately, he was unable to attend today. I will hand over to my colleague, Mr. Bobby O'Connell, Chairman of the Local Authority Members Association, LAMA.

Mr. Bobby O'Connell:

I wish to refer to section 5 of the Bill on categories of public official. We are concerned about local authority members being classified as a category A public official.

We note that there is a proposal in section 5 for local authority members to be classified as category A public officials along with Oireachtas Members, special advisers, chairpersons and CEOs of public bodies, and those on remuneration at deputy secretary level and above in the public sector.

Category A public officials will also have the highest level of obligations under the Bill. Category B public officials are classified as those on remuneration between principal officer level and deputy secretary in the public sector, and will also include a member of the board of a public body, excluding the chairperson. Category C public officials will be classified as being all other public officials. We would question the requirement to class our members as category A public officials and place them in the same category and level as Oireachtas Members and CEOs of public bodies given the powers, responsibilities and resources available that our members have at local level. We contend that local authority members should be equated with members of a board of a public body. Therefore, we suggest that local authority members should be classed as category B public officials at most.

An additional implication for being classified as category A public officials is the obligation to submit all declarations to the Commissioner of their interests during the relevant declaration period. If our members were re-classified as category B public officials, which we are now, the requirement would be to submit all declarations to the relevant public body as is the current requirement under the various Ethics and Local Government Act.

Section 8 refers to private declarable interests. We have concerns about private declarations and income from an employment. Both the AILG and LAMA have grave concerns about some of the proposals about the private declarations in section 8 of the draft Bill on declarable interests. For instance, while we accept and understand the requirement to make a public declaration on a member's employment, profession, business and directorship status, we absolutely fail to understand the reasoning one needs to make a private declaration about the amount of his or her remuneration, particularly a PAYE employment.

We would argue that if an elected member has a conflict of interest on a local authority as a result of his or her employment, the amount of their remuneration is irrelevant as the conflict of interest already exists by virtue of their employment and they should recuse themselves from the matter in their role as an elected member. We would also contend that the requirement to declare a member’s private income from an employment, trade or profession would be a data protection issue.

Section 8 concerns private declarations and declarations of assets. Again, under section 8 of the draft Bill, both associations have grave concerns in relation to the proposed requirement for category A officials to make a private declaration of liabilities and assets over €50,000, excluding pensions or a charge on the family home. We feel that this is an excessive requirement and indeed a potential invasion of privacy for our members, particularly on financial assets over €50,000 that they will now be requested to declare. For example, we fail to see the reasoning whereby an elected member who is left financial assets of over €50,000 in a family will, due to a bereavement, has to declare it even in a private capacity and why such an example like this would affect their role as an elected member.

Section 8 also relates to private declarable interests, private declarations and the declaration of gifts not connected to official function. Both associations question the requirement for category A officials to make a private declaration on receipt of gifts and travel of between €200 and €600, received from a person not related, when it is not connected to a function in our member's capacity as an elected member. Again, our members feel these instances may be of a personal nature and if it is unconnected to their capacity and function as an elected member, there should be no requirement for a declaration. We would contend that declarations in general should only be required where the gift or travel is received where it is connected to a function and we welcome the provision in the draft Bill under section 11 of the requirement and obligation for public officials to refuse such gifts in the first instance and notify the commissioner of same.

Mr. Shane O'Reilly:

Section 16 deals with the obligation to furnish a tax clearance certificate. Under the proposed provisions contained within section 16 of the draft Bill, we would request that the period for production of a tax clearance certificate should be increased to 12 months, from the current six-month requirement, following enactment of the Bill. We would also request that where members cannot produce a tax clearance certificate but have confirmation from the Revenue Commissioners that they are in the process and engaging with Revenue to bring their tax affairs up to date, this confirmation will suffice until such time as the Revenue Commissioners issue a tax clearance certificate to the member. We would also contend that this proposed provision should be extended on an annual basis for the requirement to furnish an annual tax clearance certificate by the 30 April of each year. We note the provisions contained in section 18 and section 19 in relation to evidence of subsequent compliance and an application statement for a tax clearance certificate, but we feel that providing for the above in relation to the production of a tax clearance certificate would be appropriate.

On section 33, both the AILG and LAMA have serious concerns in relation to the powers of the new commissioner, proposed under section 33 of the draft Bill, to accept written complaints from any person. The original general scheme of the Bill set out that any complainant has up to 12 months from the date on which evidence sufficient to justify the complaint comes to such person’s knowledge, and not later than five years from the date on which the alleged contravention was committed, to make a complaint against a public official. Upon receipt of a complaint, the commissioner may dismiss the complaint, deal with it by issuing advice, refer it to the relevant public body, or cause a preliminary inquiry of the complaint to be carried out. However, the Bill only specifies that a complaint must be based on evidence sufficient to justify the making of the complaint. Both representative bodies would contend that the yardstick for measuring sufficient evidence needs to be set at the higher end to combat malicious, vexatious or repetitious complaints.

For all public representatives, the threat of a malicious complaint with no basis can be detrimental to an elected member’s political career and we feel that further safeguards should be put into the Bill to ensure that our members are protected from any malicious and vexatious complaints.

Mr. Patrick Connor-Scarteen:

I will start with concerns on excessive administrative requirements for local elected members. Our final concern with the draft Bill is the potential onerous administrative obligations that compliance with the Bill will place on our members, particularly if our members are classed as category A officials with the highest level of obligations. Our members serve at local authority level with minimal secretarial and administrative backup. The obligation to make declarations three times per annum if their circumstances have changed and the obligation, in certain circumstances, to retain statements for up to a 15-year period will undoubtedly place serious administrative problems on our members and we would request that this be taken into consideration in determining the classification for our elected members at local authority level.

In conclusion, the Association of Irish Local Government and the Local Authority Members Association endeavour to bring to the fore the voices of elected members who are rooted in their own communities and work for their communities on a daily basis. We acknowledge the work of this important committee and pledge that we will play our part on behalf of all elected members to work alongside the committee and we look forward to continuing to contribute its work. We thank the Chairman and the committee members for listening to our submission and will be glad to take questions that the members may have.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their contributions.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the delegation for coming in. I had thought the Chairman and I were the only people who had concerns about this legislation because every time we engaged with the Department, we were told there was no feedback from elected councillors on it. Mr. McEntire said there was no formal consultation but has any of the organisations received any correspondence or any invitation from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to comment on the legislation since last April?

Mr. Tom Moylan:

Not that I am aware of. We held a number of meetings with the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government as part of the ongoing training programme we give to elected members, and we gave a module on governance and ethics in early 2015. This was part one and we were due to do part two later in 2015 and in 2016. We spoke to officials in the Department who oversee our training and they said we should wait until further ethics legislation was concluded, as a draft Bill was running through the Houses of the Oireachtas at that time, before we carried out any further training.

The seriousness of the Bill was first brought to our attention around April of this year and I received emails from one or two delegates, as well as from Members of the Oireachtas who wanted to bring it to the attention of elected members that the proposals in the Bill would have serious implications for them. I prepared a briefing document in April on the proposed Bill and brought it to our executive committee at our April-May meeting and it was published on our website. On 11 May, we got an email from the government reform unit in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, with a letter from the Minister attached, explaining the Bill and bringing its contents to our notice.

I will quote from the end of it. It stated: "Furthermore, officials of my Department are available to discuss any issues which might arise." According to the letter, regular meetings were held between officials in the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government and representatives of the Association of Irish Local Government. It also notes that the Bill was published in December 2015 and completed Second Stage in the Dáil on 20 January 2016. I refute the statement that we had detailed discussions with the Department.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Did the association respond to that email? Did it seek a meeting?

Mr. Tom Moylan:

Yes; I brought the contents of the letter before our executive committee in June 2017. On 12 June 2017 I replied to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, who sent the original letter. In my letter I outlined in general terms our concerns about the Bill and indicated that the Association of Irish Local Government would be available for a meeting, if the Department wished. The general points I made in our reply are the same as those set out in our submission.

It was also highlighted at meetings of the executive committee in May and June that the Bill had reached Committee Stage and that 89 amendments had been tabled. We decided to contact the joint committee later in the autumn to seek to make representations on the fact that the Bill had progressed to such a late stage. This decision to make contact was taken at our executive meeting in early September and I subsequently wrote to the Chairman on the matter.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The suggestion from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform is that many of the provisions included in the Bill already apply to local authority members and do not apply to Oireachtas Members. It argues that the purpose of the Bill is to tidy up matters, but the AILG clearly begs to differ. Does the Bill have the potential to frighten people away from running for local office?

Mr. Shane O'Reilly:

One of our main contentions is that we have an issue with encouraging younger people to enter local politics and run as candidates in local elections. We also have a major deficit in female representation in local government. The position is that PAYE earnings must be declarable, which gives rise to a data protection issue. Local authority members are not in any category, but we are more or less category B officials. The Bill proposes that we be designated as category A officials. This provision is a major turn-off for people involved in private business because the amount one pays one's employees is commercially sensitive information. If people are required to publish details of what they pay their employees, this information could be used against their companies as other companies will be able to see precisely how much their staff are being paid. The decision to designate local authority members as category A officials is a nonsense and our purpose in attending the meeting is to deal with this issue. We fall within category B, more or less, and contend that while requiring local authority members to publish details of their PAYE incomes in the fashion proposed may not frighten people off from entering local politics, it will certainly dissuade them from doing so. Both associations regard this proposal as totally wrong.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On point 5, what is the basis for wanting to extend the timeframe for producing a tax clearance certificate? If a person's tax affairs are in order, surely they will also be in order within either six or 12 months? Is this proposal causing practical difficulties? Is the purpose of the request for an extension to give people time to get their tax affairs in order when they should be in order in any case?

Mr. Tom Moylan:

The Bill provides that a tax clearance certificate must be produced within six months of its enactment. Much of this will be new to members of local authorities and the provisions will be brought to their attention once the Bill has been enacted. In cases where they cannot produce a tax clearance certificate, having a 12-month period following enactment to allow them to produce a tax clearance certificate would provide some leeway, provided they can show they are engaging with the Revenue Commissioners. The production of a tax clearance certificate is a new requirement with which local authority members will have to comply and we are simply seeking a little leeway by extending the period within which they will have to do so from six to 12 months after the enactment of the Bill.

Gerry Horkan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their attendance. I should probably declare that I used to represent the Association of Irish Local Government. I was the inaugural chair of the AILG audit committee and the inaugural trustee. I was also happy to be a councillor for 12 years and I have been a Senator for one and a half years.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator may be back as an AILG representative.

Gerry Horkan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Who knows, although I am not anticipating it. I was very happy when I was in the organisation. I thank the Chairman for being helpful as always.

Much of the discussion on the Bill in this committee has taken place in private session. Senators were not privy to the discussions on the Bill in the select committee, although I read the transcripts of the relevant meetings. There is publicly declarable and privately declarable information. The issue is that privately declarable information could be subject to data protection and could be leaked or whatever. All of this information should be declarable. It is declarable to the Revenue Commissioners and privately. If the Revenue wishes to investigate anybody, it has, as one of my former lecturers on tax once stated, more powers than gardaí involved in a murder hunt have. That has always been the case.

I do not get the reason the Standards in Public Office Commission or the body that succeeds it needs to know whether an individual in the public sector, specifically a category A official, has a cash balance of more than €50,000 or any asset other than the family home worth more than €50,000. As Councillor O'Reilly stated, we are trying to convince people to enter and stay in local politics. This proposal will create an administrative burden. Most councillors do not have secretaries. They are one-person operations and answer all their emails and take all their telephone calls. Now they are to be asked to report every three or four months on whether there has been a material change to their circumstances. The definition of "material change" in this context is a major issue as it will have a significantly different meaning for different people. An additional €1 million in income may not be a material change for some leading business people, whereas a much lower sum would be a material change for most of us. The term "material change" is vague.

I take Mr. Moylan's point about the declaration of income and category A versus category B requirements. Although income will be privately rather than publicly declared, if it is all being recorded and declared to the Revenue, I do not understand the reason it must be declared to the Standards in Public Office Commission. The same applies to details regarding assets of a value of €50,000 or more. The requirements regarding gifts and travel create another administrative burden and the limits appear to be set at a low level.

Once the system for tax clearance certificates is up and running, it probably will be fine. However, I agree that a lead-in period is required to allow leeway to people who may not be familiar with the process. Many of the 949 local councillors will have no issue with the proposed requirement, either because their entire income comes from the public purse and they do not have other sources of income or because they are privately employed and may have obtained a tax clearance certificate for other reasons, such as doing work for a local authority or public body. The issue here is the additional administrative burden being placed on local councillors. They must already make a donation statement in January and an ethical declaration in February and they soon will be required to make quarterly reports on all travel connected with various bodies. I am not sure how many people will have to do this but it is another burden. Councillors must also submit various conference reports and other information. These requirements create another burden. What will happen if something goes slightly wrong or a councillor forgets something? Are councillors supposed to count the money in their wallet or pockets because everything above a value of €50,000 must be declared? Are they supposed to count and declare every cent in every bank account they may have and get land or fields valued every quarter?

The witnesses did not refer to head 10, which proposes to prohibit local representatives whose outside role primarily involves the sale or development of land from dealing with that land during their term of office and for two years afterwards where their local authority has changed the development plan or zoning and they have been involved with the decision.

This has major implications for auctioneers, solicitors, quantity surveyors, architects, engineers and everyone else involved in the construction sector, let alone those who might be involved in farming or have done something with their land. This matter was not referenced significantly in the witnesses' document, but they have discussed it among themselves. Have they thoughts on this part of the Bill? It is the bit we have not teased out so far today.

Mr. Tom Moylan:

We have had some general discussions on the matter. Our members have told us that to comply with development plans and national guidelines on the zoning of land, many local authorities have dezoned land over the past six or seven years. Future zoning did not enter our discussions significantly because much of that work had been done and there is probably enough land zoned in local authority areas to meet population trends over the next ten to 20 years. The matter has not figured into our deliberations.

Gerry Horkan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I accept that.

Mr. Tom Moylan:

It is referenced in the Bill and we considered it.

Gerry Horkan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A number of Senators and Deputies in my party and others were councillors and have auctioneering backgrounds. I get no great sense that people have realised how impactful this might be. If people are involved in something, they will be banned from having any further dealings with it. They cannot even declare it and then deal with it. People might not have realised this.

Mr. Tom Moylan:

Our members spoke with us about recusing themselves from taking part in any discussion on a piece of land if they believe that they have, or will have, a business connection to it. For example, if a solicitor represents the family involved, he or she should recuse himself or herself from any discussion. That would be the correct course to take in that person's role as a local authority member. The same applies to auctioneers and other professionals who might have dealings with the land at any point. They must recuse themselves when the local authority makes a decision on it. Those were the general terms of the conversation that we had with our elected members, but this point has not figured predominantly in our discussions because we feel that elected members should recuse themselves if they believe that they will have a future role.

Gerry Horkan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To be fair, everyone who owns land or whose family owns land is good at declaring an interest in advance. That is certainly the case in my local authority. However, this is more about an auctioneer, solicitor or architect who, when he or she is rezoning a field, does not know what will happen in the future. Some counties are large. I happened to be a representative in the geographically smallest local authority in the country. It was 8 miles long and 5 miles wide. In large counties, however, a councillor who is an architect or quantity surveyor could be rezoning land a long way from where he or she lives only to be asked in a year's time to submit a tender. The councillor would not have known of any future involvement. People need to be aware of this.

It is important that we acknowledge that this Bill is being introduced on foot of many issues, but people have not copped how administratively burdensome it will be for certain people in some types of industry through no fault of their own. They were elected. The only people who can zone land are councillors. I sat through three development plans while I was a member of my local authority. It is what they do. People might decide that they do not want to be councillors anymore because it will impact on their professions if, for example, they are civil engineers, quantity surveyors or the like. People need to be cognisant of this.

If someone is involved with land or owns land or if family members or other connected persons own land, of course that should be declared in advance and the councillor should remove himself or herself from the chamber. Technology has moved on. In the old days, people left the chamber and did not know what happened in the room afterwards. Now, most chambers are being webcast. All people need to do is watch on their phones or look into the next room to see what is happening at the meeting. So be it.

I thank the witnesses for attending but, on the administrative side, the Department does not even appreciate the additional reporting we all were obliged to do from 2014 on in terms of travel.

If, as I used to be, one happens to be a member of the AILG, a regional authority or assembly and a health forum, one has to declare the meetings one attends, even those for which one is not paid. A councillor cannot claim for theatre boards or drug task forces, but he or she still has to recuse himself or herself. The minute a councillor leaves something out, he or she could be caught. It might not be done deliberately. It might just be an administrative mistake, the councillor forgot about a meeting or a note of it did not go into his or her diary.

The level of administration and the amount of changing required every quarter if the material changes need to be appreciated by the Department and those who drafted the Bill. Most councillors are one-person operations. If they do not do it, it does not get done. There is a lot of work involved.

The process should be streamlined to make it easier. I do not understand why people have to declare assets themselves. If a councillor has a large loan, someone might say that he or she has debts of €3 million or €4 million and could be susceptible, although that is not guaranteed. That people have to count all of their assets constantly and tell SIPO what they have when Revenue, presumably, has access to most of that data seems burdensome. It is only privately declarable in any event, so what is the point?

Rose Conway Walsh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. Having been a county councillor for a number of years, I understand the usual challenges as well as those that this Bill will pose in terms of the workload.

I wish to address the issue of PAYE salaries. Realistically, everyone will have to have a source of income other than his or her remuneration as a county councillor, which I worked out for myself as being less than €1 per hour while covering a constituency 100 miles long. I know the challenges in that regard. Are the witnesses worried that information on PAYE salaries could be used against public representatives? Would making information available, just not publicly, be a way around that? A data protection issue was mentioned. Has the AILG received legal advice to the effect that this would contravene data protection legislation?

Mr. Tom Moylan:

No, but having to disclose the amount of one's salary has been raised with our members as a potential data protection issue. We respect that, under a public declaration, local authority members must declare their employment status, be that PAYE, self-employed, a profession or a consultancy business. It is the private declarations that we fail to understand. If I work for a company that has come into conflict with the local authority, I should declare my interest as an employee of that company regardless of whether I am working for the minimum wage or on €100,000 a year. To us, the conflict stems from one's employment. The question of why a private declaration is needed on top of that is a principled matter for our members.

Deputy Calleary referred to how the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, in his discussions with it, stated that this would not place additional requirements on people and that the Bill is just pulling a number of Acts together. However, the private declarations are new in terms of what our members must report. If the Department made that point, I do not agree with it.

A PAYE worker gets a P60 at the end of the year but not a tax clearance certificate. The onus will now be on that worker to go to the Revenue Commissioners and seek a tax clearance certificate or statement saying that he or she is tax compliant even though he or she already has a P60. When we were drafting our submission, a question was raised about whether a P60, as opposed to a tax clearance certificate, would suffice. For a PAYE worker, a P60 is his or her tax clearance certificate.

Once again, it is about barriers. To us, participation in local government is only good if it involves a cross-section of people from all walks of life - young, old, male, female, working and non-working, PAYE workers and the self-employed - who are willing to put their names forward to represent communities at a local level. These are just further barriers to getting people to put their names on the ballot paper, something we want to encourage.

Mr. Shane O'Reilly:

To be totally honest with Senator Rose Conway-Walsh, our greatest fear is not only that people will not run. Deputy Dara Calleary asked if it would dissuade people from running for local office. The Senator was a councillor for a long time and represented the people very well. Not alone would this measure dissuade people from running in the local elections but, as Mr. Moylan pointed out, there must also be a balance in the council chamber. The Senator is aware - a number of Senators present were councillors - that in a place of employment people must be employed who understand what is going, there must be a gender balance and so on. Local government in Ireland is starting to become a place for those who are self-employed or retired, which is not fair.

Every year there is more and more red tape and bureaucracy for councillors. Senator Gerry Horkan has spoken about the increased burden imposed by administration. We would have no issue with the extra administration if we were given a few pounds to cover it, but once again councillors are being targeted as full-time, paid employees of county councils. They are not; they are office holders. They are, however, designated in the Bill as being in category A which includes Oireachtas Members and other full-time representatives. They are not full-time but part-time and serve their communities as best they can. Committee members are correct that councillors all have another place of employment to ensure they can support their families financially. Further remuneration was announced last week, but it equates to €520 per year or €10 per week. While we are very excited about whatever remuneration we receive as local councillors, once again we are bearing the brunt of further legislation that will be especially prohibitive for those who want to run for local office. We ask that councillors remain in category B because including them in category A is actually bringing them to a stage where they will be full-time, paid employees. If the legislators want to put us in category A, let them pay us as individuals included in that category. That is where I am coming from in this debate and I am sure everyone around the table agrees with me. The administration burden put on councillors is absolutely chronic and onerous.

Rose Conway Walsh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I certainly agree with Mr. O'Reilly in that regard. I also agree with him on the diversity needed within the council chamber. When I was a member of Mayo County Council, it amazed me that more than 50% of its elected representatives were auctioneers. It worried me that there was such a concentration of auctioneers on the council. There is an issue with reporting, land ownership, zoning and planning and one's responsibilities as a councillor. I do not see how these provisions will address that issue.

I want to ask the delegates about gifts. I cannot imagine how the provisions will work. It is very important that gifts not be given to elected representatives that could in some way influence the decision-making process. How do the councillors see that issue being resolved? It would be very easy for an elected representative to say something was a personal gift, even though it was in some way connected to a decision. Do the delegates have suggestions to make on how this issue might be resolved?

Mr. Tom Moylan:

The legislation categorises gifts or travel as being connected or not connected to a function in terms of whether they are from a relative or a person not connected to the local representative. No declaration is required if it is from a relative and there is no limit in receiving a gift as long as it is not connected to a function. That is right because they are private and personal.

We believe that if gifts are received from a third party, there will be a requirement for category A public officials to make private declarations once it goes over a certain limit, even though the gifts are not connected with the function. We would distinguish between accepting a gift that is connected with a function and accepting one that is not connected with a function. We welcome the provision under section 11 of the Bill where if a person tries to give a gift that is connected with his or her function to an elected member or category A public representative or any official, the obligation is on the public official to refuse the gift. There is an additional obligation to notify the SIPO commissioner. We welcome this provision. If, however, it is not connected to their functions and with the limits set at over €600, our members at local authority level would feel that some of these gifts could be of a personal nature, even from a person who is not connected to the representative. Members might ask why a private declaration would have to be made for that. In the context of the proof needed on whether the gift was or was not connected to a function, it comes down to somebody making a complaint and the ensuing investigation process. A public official may be able to genuinely state that it was not connected with a function but if it is, then we would have issues with it.

Rose Conway Walsh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There would be specific guidelines on that. Reference was made to the administrative burden. If there was provision for administrative support, would it circumvent that difficulty?

Mr. Tom Moylan:

The AILG campaign for better terms and conditions for elected members looked at the issue of secretarial and administrative support that is required for our members. This issue was touched upon in the announcement last week on additional support. What was announced, however, is very restrictive in the context of whether our members can avail of that extra secretarial and administrative support. Some of the records and statements must be kept for up to 15 years and it will be an additional burden, especially if declarations have to be updated every four months. There is no mention in the Bill regarding the material change in councillors' circumstances that would warrant a new declaration. This is also very subjective and it could lead to additional administration. Councillors have no full-time or even part-time secretarial or administrative back-up.

Rose Conway Walsh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is there anything that is not in the Bill that would protect the integrity of public representatives' work at local authorities? Has anything been left out? I am also concerned about the justification in terms of making a complaint. What would stop a person from the opposition making a complaint and it being held against a local authority member during an election?

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It could be one of your own.

Rose Conway Walsh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Or it could be a Fianna Fáiler, the Deputy knows what they are like.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It does not have to be the opposition.

Mr. Shane O'Reilly:

Section 33 covers the complaints procedure to the commissioner. The original scheme of the Bill sets out that the complainant has up to 12 months from the date on which evidence sufficient to justify the complaint comes to such a person's knowledge, and not later than five years from that date. The Bill, however, does not actually clarify what the sufficient evidence is in order to bring that complaint. A threat of a malicious complaint that has no basis can end the political career of a public representative just like that. The Bill's proposal in this regard is damning towards anybody in public office. Somebody can make an erroneous complaint about a public representative and this can hang over him or her for a period of five years. This is crazy stuff. The evidence should be defined, there should be specific provision as to what complaints can be allowed and it should be dealt with in a short and sharp manner. It is as simple as that. What is proposed in the Bill is extremely frightening.

Rose Conway Walsh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

So really what Mr. O'Reilly is saying is that the two bodies representing local authority members could enhance the Bill and address many of the issues we have discussed to improve it. What are the next steps in terms of an input by the bodies?

Mr. Shane O'Reilly:

I will hand over to my colleague, Mr. O'Connor.

Mr. Patrick O'Connor:

As we have stated, we are available to have an input. We need to encourage people to get into politics. At the moment people are leaving politics on a weekly basis. The onerous obligations that are specified will drive more people out. The existing criteria are stringent enough. The system is working. Some of the clauses would definitely discourage people from entering politics.

Rose Conway Walsh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will finish on this point. Do the witnesses have any idea of the average number of complaints SIPO addresses in a year?

Mr. Tom Moylan:

I do not have the information to hand. If I could make a final point, I do not think I saw anything in the general scheme of the Bill in terms of sanctions for someone making a malicious complaint. There are plenty of sanctions for the public officials if they are in contravention of the legislation such as fixed-payment notices and further prosecution. However, if someone is found to have made a malicious complaint that had no basis there is no sanction for him or her. Perhaps that is something that could deter anybody from making a malicious complaint. The issue could be addressed on Committee Stage. I have looked through the Bill and I am having another quick look to make sure I am correct in that regard. It would be helpful to have a deterrent to someone making a malicious complaint.

Rose Conway Walsh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, I do think that is a very important point.

Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome all the representatives here today to discuss the Bill. Concerns were raised about the content of the Bill when the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Donohoe, attended the committee. There was some ambiguity surrounding what is currently required from local representatives and what is outlined in the Bill. It seemed there was no understanding that there would be an increase in capacity in some areas.

I have no specific question but I wish to make two or three points on the Bill about areas on which I am concerned. I would welcome comments from the councillors. I worked as an employee for an accountancy practice and I was a councillor. That would come under the scope of section 8. As a councillor and an employee in an office environment, one's salary would become declarable. As a member of Chartered Accountants Ireland I know that I have to make a self declaration every year but it is not based on figures that would disclose commercially sensitive information from competitor to competitor. In essence, if I was going to audit a client the travel expenses for the two or three weeks on that job would become declarable under the Act. That would present a difficulty to any employer or individual doing audits or who is seconded for work. That is ironic when one considers the content of the Bill. It would provide a significant problem.

If someone in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine is doing a farm inspection does he or she have to disclose travel expenses? Where does the buck stop in that regard? I am most concerned about that measure. There is an onus on public representatives in terms of transparency when dealing with sensitive issues such as land zoning but I cannot see the logic in somebody holding down an ordinary job in the private sector being required to disclose the salary and the associated expenses. If a rep is going around selling tyres who is getting genuine travel expenses that are approved by the Revenue in terms of that private sector company's return it is beyond me why they would become declarable. The committee needs to bring those concerns to the Minister.

It makes it very difficult for politics to attract the best people. In terms of attracting good people, when I became a councillor eight or ten years ago it might have been very difficult for me to run for election while working in the private sector given that all the information relating to the firm I work for would be in the public domain. That would probably not be allowable from my perspective. The issue is very serious.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the councillors. This is a very important Bill which will have significant consequences for councillors not just for the foreseeable future but in the long term. I totally agree with the sentiments expressed by Deputies Calleary and Peter Burke and the Senators who have spoken. The two organisations will have to take a close look at the Bill. Some expertise will be required in order to assist them and give advice. They can draft amendments and give them to the Dáil and Seanad. As Deputy Burke outlined in his case, this has consequences for every person that is employed who wants to be a public representative as well.

If the Bill was introduced in its present form it would take a considerable amount of time to train the 900 or so councillors throughout the country. How do the witnesses envisage that would be done? Would it be entirely up to the Department to do it or would it be the role of the local authorities? As has been said, any member of the public could make a complaint and ignorance of the legislation on the part of a public representative will not be a defence.

Senator Conway-Walsh said she got a shock when she went to Mayo County Council and saw the number of auctioneers in it. That could well be the case, but as she can imagine, given a councillor's workload one would probably need to have another job and auctioneering was probably a neat fit. However, that is not the case at the moment because one must be qualified to be an auctioneer and there are educational attainments one must have. It is a completely different scenario now.

In the case of a material contravention or a rezoning under the Bill a meeting might not be able to take place at all because of the presence of a solicitor, auctioneer or landowner from a particular area and if they all declared an interest in it, that they might have an interest in the future or that it might affect them in the future, as the Bill specifies, there might not be any councillors present to pass a material change to a plan. The Bill has very serious consequences for public representatives. It needs very close scrutiny by experts and for amendments to be drafted to it.

Aidan Davitt (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank you, Chairman, for allowing me attend the committee today. I have a serious concern with the way the Department is treating councillors and their representative bodies. Do you intend to bring in the Department to clarify some of the issues raised in terms of meetings and consultations with the representative bodies? Some of the things that have emerged are shocking and how the Department has dressed up its meetings with various representative bodies and councillors. As we have heard, there has been little to no consultation with them. That has really opened my eyes. Fair play to you, Chairman, for airing this matter today.

There seems to be a serious disconnect between the Department and the reality of councillors' lives. Currently, councillors are paid less than cleaners or service attendants in the Civil Service. They are grouped in the same section as Secretaries General and CEOs, who earn salaries of between €150,000 and €200,000 per annum.

There is a serious disconnect in where they fit in along the system here. The witnesses, Mr. O'Connell in LAMA and Mr. McEntire, Mr. O'Reilly and Mr. Connor-Scarteen in the AILG, might clarify from their experience where they this see in relation to turning people away from entering politics. I refer to the new regulation in regard to pay and expenses, secretarial supports etc.

Mr. Bobby O'Connell:

I thank Senator Davitt. I am in local politics now since 1985, which is 32 years and quite a long time. It is becoming more and more restrictive. When a Bill like this comes before us the implications are severe. At the moment local authorities are haemorrhaging young councillors. Local authorities and communities need young vibrant councillors. All these restrictions being put in by the Department make it complicit in this. They are trying to put a bush in every gap. Everywhere one turns there are more regulations. We get an average of €16,000 a year before tax. One will not feed oneself nor a family on that without another job. I cannot understand why it is being entertained in the Oireachtas. Most if not all in this room has probably come up through council level. The people in the Department know nothing about local government or what is involved. We have to be adjudicated on every five years when we go before the people. If we are not up to scratch, or even if we are doing a good job, we can be thrown out. I think that is the best barometer of all. Ninety-eight percent of councillors are compliant. We have to fill declaration form after declaration form every year. It is time that someone inside here in this big house just cried stop. These are draconian measures to us. We cannot afford it. We do not have the administrative backup to fill out all these forms. Members hardly have it themselves here in the Oireachtas. It is completely prohibitive for young councillors to come in. They come into every council chamber in Ireland to represent their communities. We need some support to support our communities. There is a lot in this Bill that is simply not going to work.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does anybody else wish to speak?

Mr. Luie McEntire:

I want to agree with Mr. O'Connell. I am slightly longer in politics. I am in it for 38 years. When I entered politics first there was no money in it. It is back to that again. What Senator Burke has said is true. I worked at the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. I kept the two jobs going. I cannot see now that would suffice. If I was out working with farmers and receiving representations from them I do not think that would be allowed now. I can tell Senator Conway-Walsh that she need not worry about too much money or handouts coming into councillors' pockets any more. That day is long and truly gone. There were only a few that ever got it anyway.

Mr. Patrick Connor-Scarteen:

We need a cross section of society in local government. We could have a scenario where people who are retired and people who are wealthy enter politics. Younger people who might be well educated and involved in their community, with great intentions, will be discouraged. Many people are not entering it for money. When one is starting on a basic of €16,000, with some little add-ons, it does not amount to much.

We might end up with only single people entering politics. People with families could not survive on a councillor's wage. We have to make declarations every January and everything is put down on paper by us. As my colleague said, we go before the people every five years. If they do not think we are up to scratch, they can dump us out. With all due respect to the Members, who made some very valid points, many councillors work as hard as any Senator or Deputy. That is a fact.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are well worth our money.

Mr. Patrick Connor-Scarteen:

Many councillors do work very hard and they are in it for the good of their communities, not for the money. Fair play is needed in this regard.

Mr. Shane O'Reilly:

Senator Paddy Burke has spoken about the issue of people stepping out of council meetings and there being no one there to have a meeting. However, what we are in effect being asked to do in this Bill is to engage in a crystal ball syndrome. How we can be asked as local authority members to foresee the future in two years is absolutely beyond me. That is what we are being asked to do in this Bill and it makes absolutely no sense. Senator Davitt asked where we see ourselves without secretarial support etc. I refer back to an article in one of the national newspapers last week when the announcement was made by the Department regarding vouched and unvouched expenses for councillors as well as the new municipal district grant. The headline stated "€5,000 windfall for local councillors". It is not. It is absolutely not. However, the public thinks that we as councillors are on this massive gravy train and that we are getting massive amounts of money. There would those who wonder, if we are getting all this money, why are we fighting about a bit more scrutiny over the issues we need to report and declarable interests etc.

It is often lost in the debate that we as councillors pay PRSI and USC. It was not up until a few months ago that we were entitled to the State pension. Prior to that we were not. We have had many councillors who have given more than 40 years service, and when they retired after putting on a stamp for all those years, they were entitled to nothing. Mr. O'Connell hit the nail on the head. We are asking the Oireachtas Members to cry stop. There is not much more we can take as councillors. That is being totally and utterly honest. I have no doubt that the Members have been doing their best. However, today we are here once again with another raft of nonsense that is being put on our shoulders as councillors. To be fair, Senator Conway-Walsh asked whether it will prohibit diversity. Diversity is going very fast. Mr. O'Connell has spoken of a haemorrhaging of people out of our councils. It is happening day in, day out.

Rose Conway Walsh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Why does Mr. O'Reilly think I got out?

Mr. Shane O'Reilly:

The Senator got out because I did not got in.

Mr. Tom Moylan:

To come back to two things that Senator Burke said about the drafting of amendments, I would take his and the Chairman's advice about what stage it is at in terms of the acceptance of amendments. If the points that we made in our submission were to be drafted into proposed specific amendments, we would have no problem sending them in and getting that done. Again, we would take the Members' advice on whether they can accept any more amendments and depending on how far it has gone.

In regard to the training of members on this new Bill, the AILG has a training remit under the 2014 local government reforms.

The representative body took on a training remit with our members. As I stated, we had a module on ethics and governance for our local authority members in 2015. We are to follow that up with another module once this legislation goes through. That is what we tentatively agreed with our line Department, the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government.

Local authorities have a training remit in respect of their elected members. If, however, our members are to be classified as category A public officials, their return will be straight to the commissioner. I envisage local authorities saying they have no role if the return is made straight to the commissioner and that, if one wants training or knowledge, one should talk to the commissioner. The local authorities might say they have no obligation. At present, returns are made to the local authority so help and support exist for elected members in making those returns. If our members were reclassified as category B public officials, the returns would still be to their body, which is their local authority. There would be internal help.

Senator Davitt referred to consultation. The first official correspondence we got from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform was on 11 May 2017. We responded to that in a letter. I sent the details to the Chairman in September. We are very grateful for the opportunity to appear here today. I thank the Chairman and members for this.

The report was published in 2015. The first official correspondence we got was on 11 May 2017. I believe that was because the committee asked the Department officials directly whether they had consulted the councillors' representative bodies or the elected members themselves. At that stage, they said, "No". That is what we got our first correspondence on. We will follow up on the discussion today and send our submission to the officials. If amendment is required in following up, we will take the committee's advice on whether it is appropriate or still possible.

Gerry Horkan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am glad that has been clarified. Officials from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform were before us. The Department did a public sector standards briefing on the Bill in the audiovisual room. I was the only member of the Oireachtas present. At the time, there did not seem to be that much concern. Only for the Chairman, me and a number of other members of this committee saying it was not going any further until we had a response, there would have been a different outcome. We were told by the Department that it wrote to the delegates and that they did not respond. That is what we heard although it is clear the delegates sent us the submissions they made. We do not know where they went, therefore. They went into the Department but the Minister says he never got them or saw them. There was no reaction and everything was regarded as fine. The legislation was approved just before the last general election so many of us were not Members at the time. It is deeply flawed in how it is put together and how it will work in practice. I refer to declaring everything one owns every three or four months and having to record all one's assets, with the possibility of having to go before some kind of investigation or tribunal, through no fault of one’s own, if one accidentally leaves something out. One could end up being prosecuted and in jail. Of course there should be sanctions for genuine wrongdoing and the abuse of one's position. When the Revenue Commissioners have access to all the information anyway and one declares it all to them when calculating one's income tax, why the involvement of SIPO, or whatever it will be named in the future? If it were not for the Chairman and many members of the committee saying there was to be no further progress further until they heard a response, the delegates would not have been brought in. Neither AILG nor LAMA would be here. I commend the Chairman in this regard. I commend all the members who sat diligently with officials from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, who said all was fine, that everyone was happy, that there is no issue with the legislation and that everyone wanted to get it through as fast as they could. There is a huge administrative burden for people who are trying to engage in local government, most with another job. Who can live and raise a family on €16,000 a year before paying PRSI and the universal social charge? As stated, the PRSI class, involving a payment rate of 4%, gave nothing. In fact, the only people in the entire public service who do not get pensions are councillors. People sometimes need to remember that.

It is important to note that submissions were sent in by the delegates. They were mislaid or lost somewhere. We now have the delegates' input and we can go back to the Department with it and say people are not happy and that we need a more streamlined, easy method with an explanation as to why work needs to be duplicated or triplicated.

I thank all the delegates for attending. None of them is being paid to be here. I thank the four councillors who are here, Mr. Tom Moylan and Mr. Liam Kenny for all their work.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments may be tabled on Committee and Report Stages in the Dáil and Seanad. Both representative bodies, given their cross-party nature, would have a very strong case if they were to suggest an amendment.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the councillors and their colleagues. We make declarations every year, although my circumstances do not change from year to year. I would love to see a simple form that asks whether anything has changed in a person's circumstances from the commencement of their time as a councillor. That would be logical. If a person has bought or sold land, for example, he or she should include that information, but he or she should not have to go through the whole rigmarole and get a peace commissioner to sign it.

It would be good if we could bring about some change in that regard because we are inundated with paper and do the same thing every year when I respond with the same information. There has been no change from five years ago and I am sure it is the same for councillors. If a councillor has a house, a piece of ground or a business, that information is declared.

The delegates and their organisations are very influential. I ask them to, please, simplify things and cut out the nonsense because the information is declared on the first day a person is elected to the county council for a five-year term. If he or she is asked each year whether there has been a change in his or her circumstances and he or she says "No" when there has been a change, he or she could be in difficulty if something is unearthed. Only a small amount of housekeeping is needed. This also applies to Members of the Dáil and the Seanad. Next January I will go through the same things again, giving every little detail which has to be signed by a peace commissioner, but what is the point?

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is the point. We want to comply, but we need to make it simple. The Department needs to come back to us on this point, but let us simplify it and have a copy of the form that might be used. My concern about legislation is that it is like county development plans; it is passed with honest intent and sincere objectives, but its interpretation can cause difficulties. Alongside the legislation we would need to see the simplified version of the document that would be used to make the return.

On that note we will conclude. I thank each and every one of the delegates for coming and making a constructive contribution.