There was a considerable backlash in recent weeks when online media outlets in Waterford re-published details of security allowances paid to Waterford Councillors.
Articles concerning these allowances were first published in February but new online articles were published again in August quoting the same details.
This sparked weeks of debate which eventually entered the Council chamber with some Waterford councillors accusing others of deliberately stoking the controversy, while they argued that €10,000 of public funds should not be spent on securing the homes of councillors.
The point was made during these debate that take-up of the security allowance is high with members of the Oireachtas, although this garners very little media attention or public debate.
Speaking in the Senate, Senator Sharon Keogan, weighed in on the side of those who availed of the security allowance, and argued that making the information available is akin to publishing “a virtual map of which public representatives feel unsafe.”
“Following a series of deeply concerning credible threats and security incidents directed at local elected representatives, the Government took the welcome step of enacting SI 297 of 2025, which increased the lifetime cap of the councillor security allowance up to €10,000,” she explained.
“This fund was designed to act as an essential shield, allowing local representatives to install basic security measures such as gates, CCTV and intruder alarms at their private family residence following a formal threat assessment by an independent Garda crime prevention officer.”
PUBLICATION POLICY
While many in the public call for the utmost transparency around the spending of public money on the personal properties of local representatives, Senator Keogan argues this jeopardises the safety of the person the money is intended to protect.
“A dangerous and entirely counterproductive paradox has emerged in how this scheme is being administered across our 31 local authorities,” she claimed.
“… Just some weeks ago, this structural flaw exploded into the public domain. Figures published openly on the website of Waterford City and County Council, and subsequently picked up via freedom of information, FOI, requests and national media broadsheets, disclosed the exact identities of the specific councillors who availed of this security fund, along with the precise thousands of euro they were paid. This is a profound breach of basic common sense.”
“We are witnessing a scenario where a councillor faces a threat so severe that An Garda Síochána formally mandates the installation of security gates at their home, only for the local authority to immediately publish that councillor’s name and expenditure on a public dashboard.”
She went on to say that such a publication policy was handing “bad actors a virtual map of which public representatives feel unsafe, where families are under threat and where their security investments are concentrated.”
TWO TIER SECURITY
While spending on councillor security is often criticised, many may not be aware how much is spent on securing national politicians. This discrepancy has led Senator Keogan to ask if the lives of local representatives were worth less protection than their national counterparts.
“Members of the Dáil and this very Chamber have access to a €25,000 personal security allowance. Yet under the Freedom of Information Act 2014 and Oireachtas guidelines, there are rigid, clear protections that ensure our itemised invoices and receipt details are heavily redacted or withheld to protect our personal safety and stop bad actors from mapping out our home security layouts.
“Why is a TD or a Senator granted absolute statutory confidentiality to protect their family home while a local county councillor is forced to have their safety paraded on a public ledger? Are the lives and homes of local representatives somehow worth less protection?” she asked.
Although the Senator acknowledged transparency around public spending was an important democratic principle, she referenced FOI exemptions in issues of public safety and called for the Minister to publish mandatory guidelines that bring more protection to local representatives, asking that “while the macro spending of the scheme is accounted for, the individual names, specific properties and funding breakdowns of threatened local representatives are permanently restricted from public disclosure and freedom of information releases
“We must protect the people who run our local democracies before an entirely preventable tragedy occurs.”
Minister of State, TD Emer Higgins, answered this request by highlighting how the FOI process works and acknowledging the concerns raised by Senator Keogan—who did not seem to appreciate the answer and called it ‘a lot of waffle’.
On her second reply TD Higgins did seem open to exploring the possibility of Councillors being granted the same protections as TDs. She said that some of the issues, in terms of publishing security details, arises because Local Authorities interpret the legislation in different ways.
“I agree that if the guidelines need to be updated, that will and should happen. I understand that the Department of housing is reviewing the regulations and the guidance to determine whether they require updating,” she explained.
“No decision has been made on this yet, but I will pass on the Senator’s feedback and the feedback of the AILG and LAMA. I know that LAMA has done a lot of work on this, in particular around making sure there is parity in terms of the allocation between councillors and Members of this House.
“This was the right thing to do, and we need to make sure there is parity in every element of this.”
AARON KENT Funded by the Local Democracy Reporting Scheme
