Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses.

Some of the issues I wished to raise have already been raised so I might just drill into some of the specific aspects of the proposed legislation that I am a little concerned about.

Specifically, I am concerned that the available sanctions are very moderate. There is a focus on monetary sanctions and administrative sanctions under Part IIIC of the consolidated Central Bank Act. I know these include monetary penalties and disqualification but these are still administrative sanctions in that context. I note the only new criminal offence being introduced under legislation relates to the confidentiality of the documents used in an inquiry, so again it is a witness that is potentially facing a new sanction relating to the confidentiality of an inquiry if he or she is seen as having breached the confidentiality of a seen document. I am little concerned that obstruction of an inquiry is being downgraded whereby there was a criminal sanction but it is now proposed a civil remedy would be used instead of the criminal offence.

The witnesses have mentioned co-operation with the Garda National Economic Crime Bureau. It would be very useful to know and be clearer on where those connections move and at what point they move. What are the formal mechanisms in an inquiry if matters arise that are of concern? Has consideration been given to perhaps strengthening criminal offences under this Bill? As I have said, currently the only new criminal offence I have seen - I may have missed some in the heads - relates to the confidentiality of documentation. I am also concerned that in terms of obstruction of an inquiry, in the heads of the Bill the case is put that a civil remedy would be quicker to use because it would be impracticable to use a criminal offence. From a deterrent perspective, and if the case being put by the bank it is that it is keen to deter obstruction, I worry that a civil remedy would certainly be seen as a less serious deterrent than a criminal offence when it comes to the obstruction of an inquiry. I worry that we might even be giving a signal that people can obstruct an inquiry and although civil action may be taken, they are not taking a risk associated with a criminal offence, as they may have done before.

There are two or three other matters. The witnesses mentioned where they see the first tranche of application and I would like their perspective on investment limited partnerships. I have significant concerns about the investment limited partnership legislation that recently went through the Oireachtas in general in that it seemed to move accountability away from a number of people who may sit on the boards of organisations making key decisions on those organisations and on investment partnership policies but fall under the new thresholds for responsibility. What is the perspective of the witnesses on the investment limited partnerships and are they seen as something they want to look to?

I have another one or two queries but perhaps the witnesses might answer those questions first. The proposed amendment to section 33BC of the principal Act relates to settlements. I am quite concerned about settlements as an option. I note that within settlements, there may be a decision as to whether to publish information and the reputation of the relevant executive person is a consideration in that regard. Again, I am concerned that there may be a scenario where we see many settlements but not actual accountability for individuals. Individuals who settle may reappear with other roles or continue to hold multiple roles, as Deputy Farrell outlined, as people could hold 100 or more roles. The questions relate to section 33BC of the principal Act and the proposed head 25 on obstruction, as well as the wider question of criminal sanctions. There is also the issue of investment limited partnerships.