Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 17, lines 8 and 9, to delete “offered, given or agreed to be given, accepted, obtained or agreed to be accepted” and substitute “accepted or obtained”.

Amendments Nos. 2 to 5, inclusive, deal with the forfeiture penalty under section 17, which appears four times. Each of the amendments seeks to do the same thing to each subsection in which the forfeiture penalty appears. On Committee Stage I flagged that I might need to bring forward such an amendment. Members will be aware that under section 27(1) there are four penalty options for a court where a person is found guilty of the offence of trading in influence. The penalties are a fine, a term of imprisonment, the forfeiture of a gift, consideration or an advantage and a combination of one or more of these penalties.

Amendment No. 2 is to section 17(1)(iii) which provides for the forfeiture penalty. The subsection states a court may order the forfeiture of any gift, consideration or advantage offered, given or agreed to be given, accepted, obtained or agreed to be accepted. Advice on the section has outlined that this provision, as worded, may be difficult to enforce. Ordering somebody to forfeit something he or she has already given to another person is not possible. The same applies to gifts, etc. agreed to be given or accepted. There is no guarantee that there is actually such a gift or that the person convicted has it in order to allow it to be forfeited. Amendments Nos. 3 to 5, inclusive, follow in the same vein in the penalties for other offences under the Bill.

Essentially, what we are doing is ensuring a court may only order the forfeiture of a gift, an advantage or a consideration that the person being convicted actually holds. The amendments are technical in nature and I ask Deputies to give favourable consideration to the points mentioned.

See this speech in context