Concerns raised in Seanad over Waterford councillors’ security gate controversy
Two Waterford councillors were each allocated in the region of €10,000 for security measures at their private homes last year
Concerns have been raised in the Seanad over the security gate controversy involving two Waterford councillors.
Back in August, it was revealed that Fine Gael councillors Lola O’Sullivan and Pat Nugent had each been allocated in the region of €10,000 for security measures at their homes in 2025.
The story received widespread attention, with many people, particularly on social media, criticising the two councillors.
The money was allocated under amendments made to the Local Government Act 2001, which came into effect in July of last year.
The legislation allows for funding to be provided to elected members where they are seen to face “a credible and serious threat to their personal physical security”.
The matter was discussed during a recent Seanad debate on local democracy.
Independent Senator Sharon Keogan began by welcoming the introduction of the security allowance.
Senator Keogan said: “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.
“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.”
However, she raised concerns over the fact that the use of these funds is public and particularly referenced the Waterford case.
“However, a dangerous and entirely counterproductive paradox has emerged in how this scheme is being administered across our 31 local authorities.
“This allowance operates on a vouched reimbursement basis, and, therefore, the current administrative guidelines require these safety payments to be treated as a standard transparent public expense.
“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.”
Senator Keogan argued that these expenses should not be made public because it risks the councillors’ safety further.
“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.
“We are handing bad actors a virtual map of which public representatives feel unsafe, where families are under threat and where their security investments are concentrated.”
She also highlighted the fact that Oireachtas members are entitled to a €25,000 security allowance, the details of which are heavily redacted.
Senator Keogan went on to call on the Government to intervene to ensure the details of such spending is not made public,
While transparency in public spending is an important democratic principle, it must never be weaponised to compromise human safety. I am, therefore, calling on the Minister to urgently intervene.
“Will the Department issue updated mandatory guidelines to all local authorities to ensure 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.”
In response, Minister of State Emer O’Higgins said that the issue relates to how local authorities interpret the legislation.
Minister O’Higgins said: “The issue here seems to be that certain local authorities interpret the legislation differently.
“She gave one example of a local authority that has looked at this legislation differently. If there are more, I am happy to pass them on, not just to the Minister for Local Government, but also to the Minister for Public Expenditure to ensure he is aware of this.
“I agree that if the guidelines need to be updated, that will and should happen.”
Minister O’Higgins concluded by saying that the Department of Housing is reviewing the regulations and the guidance to determine whether they require updating.
“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,” she added.