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.