Maurice Quinlivan (Limerick City, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I am pleased to speak on this important Bill. We have been looking for this for many years in the previous committee and in the committee I chair at the moment. The establishment of a corporate enforcement authority as a stand-alone entity is a very positive and welcome step, and I want to put that on the record. For too long, white-collar crime has not been pursued as vigorously as it should be. These crimes are not victimless. They damage the international reputation of the State and impact on the price that consumers pay for goods. The establishment of the corporate enforcement authority is something that I and my colleagues in Sinn Féin welcome very much. Its establishment to replace the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement is a positive step. It should allow for increased resources and powers that can be used in the battle against white-collar crime. If we do not take this opportunity to reform, fund and resource this organisation properly, then we are failing everybody.

As a State, we have a poor record of dealing with so-called white-collar crime. Our failure to deal with this type of criminality means there has been little to deter others from engaging in it. With the establishment of a corporate enforcement authority, this record needs to be improved, as I hope it will be. People can no longer feel there is one rule for them and other rules for the rest of us. We must give confidence to citizens and introduce a deterrent to those who would commit such crimes. They have got away with it for far too long. Going after white-collar crime has never been treated with the same degree of urgency as going after ordinary working-class people.

The Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment, which I chair, has examined the issue. We welcomed Mr. Ian Drennan, Director of Corporate Enforcement, to the committee and discussed the merits and demerits of establishing a corporate enforcement agency. I thank all my committee colleagues from all parties of this House for their vigorous analysis of this topic, on which we had long discussions.

One of the recommendations the committee made, which merits further consideration, is the suggestion that non-Garda staff who have expert skills be allowed to attend interviews. This would, in certain circumstances, allow additional knowledge and skills to be available during an interview. I appreciate this would require an alteration to custody regulations and I suggest that a feasibility study of such an adjustment be conducted as soon as possible.

There is broad support for this legislation, bar some issues of concern raised during pre-legislative scrutiny. I look forward to its enactment.

Granting the authority autonomy over the deployment of its resources is necessary. As I said, we must ensure it gets the resources it needs. The power to recruit its own staff with the skills it considers necessary will be a key component of ensuring the independence of the proposed corporate enforcement agency. Such independence is important, but oversight and accountability are also necessary. I welcome the provision requiring the agency to submit an annual report to the Houses. The requirement to submit strategy statements is another important element in ensuring the authority remains focused on its objectives and the strategies it has committed to using to obtain such objectives.

Granting the authority power to pursue and investigate suspected breaches of the Act, which is the fundamental objective of the authority, is important but it is also important to note that the Bill will grant discretion to the authority with regard to how it wishes to pursue individual cases.

Autonomy allowing the authority to resolve suspected cases by agreement has been included in the Bill at section 944AD. This section correctly allows the authority "absolute discretion" to "enter into an agreement ... to resolve" these matters. This is an important element that may save the authority time and resources that would otherwise be used to pursue a matter.

I welcome the inclusion of section 944R allowing the authority to carry out its functions by restricting the use of Articles 14 and 15 of the GDPR. This is an important carryover form previous Bills and will ensure the authority can investigate thoroughly any suspected breaches of company law.

I will raise some issues of concern, which my colleague, Deputy O'Reilly, mentioned. I refer to a concern raised at the pre-legislative hearings by Professor Deirdre Ahern. Professor Ahern was concerned about the number of members of the authority. The minimum number of one is too low and should be increased to between two and five. We will submit amendments on that matter.

A second concern is the failure to mention names, which Deputy O'Reilly also raised. This needs to be clarified or we will table amendments on that matter also. It is not fair that the name of a person convicted of a minor crime, such as possession of drugs for personal use, may end up in the local or national media, whereas the name of someone involved in white-collar crime will not be mentioned. It is important that we send out a signal that all people will be treated the same regardless of the crime they commit.

I reiterate my party's broad support for the Bill. There are elements that we will seek to amend. I look forward to the launch of the authority in 2022 and the message this will send to all those involved in criminality, no matter the type, and that white-collar crime will be pursued with all necessary resources. The Government has an opportunity to make sure the new authority, when established, has the resources it needs, whether funding or staff. I welcome the Bill.

See this speech in context