Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I agree entirely with the Chairman. I was one of the first people in this House to take issue with this directive. Other colleagues at the time said they did not know about this directive. They did not know about it, but it is there. I find it unfair because those who fall into this category, such as politicians and their families and associates, are treated more stringently and aggressively than a person who is not deemed to be politically exposed although he or she may be interested in politics as well. What kind of politics can one be associated with without being accused of being politically exposed? Are there any such politics? I assume the answer is "No".

I presume that the financial institutions, as the Chairman has said, have a lot of control now and by comparison the political institutions do not have as much. As time follows, the political institutions are on a losing game and the financial institutions are gaining. I do not accept that and I will always fight against it, as the Chairman has done. I opposed it from the beginning. There are people who did not know they were voting in favour of it. It is a weakness of the European Union that legislation can be introduced in this fashion without some discussion beforehand and without some way of seeing if it complies with our Constitution. The basis of our Constitution is that everybody is innocent until proven guilty. In this particular case, however, all of those who are politically exposed are potentially guilty and must prove their innocence. This is in stark variation with our Constitution. I believe this must be dealt with at a much higher level.

I acknowledge that the officials have said that the European courts can deal with this and have dealt with this, and that they have dealt with a lot of other extreme cases also. It would appear that a citizen of this State who happens to be a public representative will be under suspicion no matter what happens - the Chairman has referred to this, quite correctly - and a person who is a relative, a friend or an associate of a public representative is on to something as well. That kind of allegation has often been made around the House, as we know, when one party or another wants to land a slur on somebody else. The matter under discussion today, however, is in the real world. To presume that we are potentially guilty of something is, to my mind, a violation of our rights and a handing over of citizens' rights to financial institutions. I do not need to be encouraged to talk about financial institutions because, like the Chairman, I have engaged with and opposed many of them. Some of them are good to deal with and some of them are not. Some of them are secretive. Some of them ignore public representatives, some of them challenge public representatives, and some of them clearly indicate that they do not give a damn about public representatives. They are their own bosses, and they are quite happy in that position.