Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour)

I am not caught up by the tone or tenor of Deputy Varadkar's amendment. Were Members to continue in that vein, it would be possible to regulate businesses out of existence. As for talking about trust in politics, if Members continue to speak in that vein, they will perpetuate the myth that no one is trustworthy. The de minimis thresholds of €2,500 or €3,000 in this regard are peanuts and in addition, an aggregate amount will be disclosed. While I do not come from a business background, business must be allowed to continue in some form. The fact that one big avalanche of which all Members are aware took place does not mean every business carries on in that fashion. Moreover, I understand the Financial Regulator will be involved. How many more people must become involved in poking their noses into every bit of business? I do not hold a brief for business people in so far as I am not a business person and I do not come from a business background. However, as a self-employed person, I know the amount of scrutiny to which one is subject and to which one must comply is considerable.

I have made the point previously that those who enter politics are subject to fairly significant intrusions. I acknowledge the case has been made that assets could be put into a spouse's name or something similar. However, my understanding is that a register will be kept of such transactions. As Deputy Varadkar noted, the Minister of the day will have a shareholding in this regard. That means he or she will have an obligation to act in the public interest and on behalf of the public. Moreover, one of the 15 constitutionally-bound members of the Executive will have a role in this regard. Ultimately, having reflected carefully on this issue, I am prepared to give the Minister's views on this issue a fair wind and a fair opportunity. I understand that further regulation and further legislation dealing with this particular issue is forthcoming and that the banks themselves will be obliged to maintain a register that must be furnished. The Minister of State might pay attention to this point. My understanding is that the register must be furnished under pain of penalty. It is no longer a nice option, it is mandatory and carries penalties. As someone who, in another guise, must examine the legislation that passes through this House it sometimes borders on prurience. The Labour Party will not support the amendment, it will abstain from it. I have concerns about sections 5 and 6 of this Bill, of which the Minister of State is aware.

We are enacting legislation because of the particular circumstances but the Government is throwing out much legal precedent and common law applicable in every common law jurisdiction. I am loth to be a signatory to this. That is why I asked for this to be furnished in a report to the Dáil. It is my intention to be vigilant in that regard because I am deeply concerned that someone can arrive, bring all and sundry and load up the tractor and trailer, taking everything in the place including privileged documents and those with lawyer-client privilege. I have grave concerns and I will not wait until the game is over before saying this. Rights are involved and in the rush to trammel rights sometimes bad law is made.

I am well aware of the background circumstances that have led to this Bill with which we have co-operated. As Labour Party spokesman, it would be remiss of me not to signal a degree of discomfort in respect of some aspects of this Bill. I say that with no vested interest, other than as a lawyer who reads Bills and watches them operate subsequently. I will be very vigilant on the operation of these sections. They should be used only as a last resort. That is why I seek a report on their operation on an annual basis. I understand the Minister of State will facilitate this.

Deputy Varadkar has given valid reasons for the tabling of this amendment. I do not hold the same view. His views are as plausible and well-founded as mine but the measure in the legislation is more than adequate. It will be complemented by subsequent legislation and financial regulatory control. We used to talk about triple locks but we will have the whole place locked in. Mr. Justice Kingsmill Moore said that to make accidents impossible would be to make work impossible. In other words, we can never insure against every risk. We could get to the stage where the amount of regulation means we may not get people who want to be directors or part of a business set-up. We must be careful to strike a balance.

See this speech in context