Niall Collins, or the apparent weakness of the Local Government Act 2001

Sono Topolino

A lot of virtual ink has been spent on this topic on Twitter, where nuance goes to die. The meat of the allegation against Niall Collins is that he voted in favour of the sale of local authority land by open market, and his wife was the final purchaser of the same land. The full (alleged) story is available here: https://www.ontheditch.com/niall-collins-public-land/

This is all alleged, it must be said. But if the allegation is in fact true, I was wondering if it amounted to a breach of section 177 of the Local Government Act 2001 (as amended) ("the Act"). Councillors are obliged to declare an interest and recuse themselves when they have “actual knowledge that… a connected person (spouse) has a pecuniary or other beneficial interest in, or which is material to, the matter". Based on my reading of the Act, neither Niall Collins nor his wife are alleged to have a "pecuniary or other beneficial interest" in the land in question. It would not have been possible for them to have a pecuniary interest, as they had no right or title to the land being sold by open market. Furthermore, "beneficial interest" has a rather precise meaning in the Law of Equity. Section 176(1) of the Act elaborates on this meaning:

"In respect of a resolution, motion, question or other matter which is proposed, or otherwise arises from or as regards F241[the performance by the local authority concerned, or any municipal district members for that authority, of any functions] under this or any other enactment, “beneficial interest” for the purposes of this Part, in relation to a person, includes an interest in respect of which—

(a) he or she or a connected person, or any nominee of his or her or of a connected person, is a member of a company or any other body which has a beneficial interest in, or which is material to, any such matter,

(b) he or she or a connected person is in a partnership with or is in the employment of a person who has a beneficial interest in, or which is material to, any such matter,

(c) he or she or a connected person is a party to any arrangement or agreement (whether or not enforceable) concerning land which relates to any such matter,

(d) he or she or a connected person in the capacity as a trustee or as a beneficiary of a trust has a beneficial interest in, or which is material to, any such matter,

(e) he or she or a connected person is acting with another person to secure or exercise control of a company which has a beneficial interest in, or which is material to any such matter."

As Niall's wife had merely expressed interest in acquiring the property, subsection (c) above would not apply - she had not entered into any arrangement/agreement to acquire the property, which was after all to be sold on the "open market".

In summary, Niall Collins has stayed within the strict letter of the law this time. Does this make what he and his wife allegedly did right and proper? I would argue firmly "no". If what the Ditch has alleged is true, then his conduct would fit the ordinary person on the street definition of "corruption". But there is a significant gap between what an ordinary person would consider corrupt and what the legislation prohibits. So what can we do about that? Change the law of course!*

*I mean petition your local TDs to change the law, and get drunk in despair when they don't. 😂

***This allegation has been proven false by virtue of the fact that Niall Collins and Eimear O'Connor got married in 2010, while the vote in question took place in 2006***

Sono Topolino

Addendum: the Ditch omitted the rather crucial fact that Niall Collins was not married to Eimear O'Connor at the time.

Further addendum: it appears the Ditch had a copy of his marriage certificate and almost certainly committed libel: