Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank all the Senators for their contributions. They managed to cover the full breadth of the Bill in the different matters they raised.Senators Ned O'Sullivan, Pat O'Neill, Sean D. Barrett, Máiría Cahill, Kathryn Reilly, Maurice Cummins, Gerard P. Craughwell, Terry Brennan and Hildegarde Naughton raised important matters connected with the Bill. I will address some of the common themes raised with me and then possibly address some of the specific matters raised by Senators. I thank Members for offering broad support for the Bill.

A core theme that emerged in the points made by colleagues was the role of councillors in local authorities. There are two ways by which a transfer can take place. The first is complete dissolution, by which method the company is merged with the local authority its entirety. The concerns raised by Senators are more likely to emerge in the second model which is referred to in the Bill as a transfer of shareholding. It means that the company will be transferred to the local authority, with the key difference being the shareholding will be held by the local authority as opposed to the Minister of the day. In that context, I respectfully suggest the potential in the past for a perceived conflict of interest, let alone an actual conflict of interest, could become even bigger. I will give an example of what I am referring to.

Let us take a scenario in which the accounts of the company are being laid in front of the local authority, as required. This involves their being laid in front of a body of which a director of the company issuing the accounts could be a member. The director could find himself or herself in a position where he or she might not be able to engage in detail on the accounts, but questions would be raised concerning whether it was appropriate for accounts to be laid in front of the local authority of which the director was a member.