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.