Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I have only a few minutes, so I will be brief. I welcome the Bill. When an organisation that has been operating on an ad hocbasis is put on a statutory basis, the power, authority and status of that organisation are much improved. However, even the most unbiased observer would have to admit that the record of the ODCE has been a mixed one. People have referenced the FitzPatrick case. I believe the Minister of State mentioned in his opening statement when introducing the legislation that there had been procedural changes in the organisation as a result of that case. Having studied the case closely, I would like him to give the House an indication of exactly what procedural changes he was referencing.

Putting the ODCE on a statutory basis is the primary purpose of the legislation. The secondary purpose is to improve the law, as recommended by the CLRG, and correct some anomalies in the Companies Act 2014 that have emerged through practice. Most of the Bill's measures are technical and relate to share ownership, share consolidation, mergers, etc. I welcome them, as there have been problems in practice. Some of the measures are fairly obvious ones relating to corporate enforcement. For example, the power to restrict directors is being extended, which is welcome. The qualifications of directors and liquidators are being addressed in this Bill. I am surprised this issue was not dealt with long ago, but it is nevertheless welcome even if it is late. There are some basic provisions, such as the requirement in certain circumstances for directors and liquidators to produce their PPS numbers. I should have thought that was fairly obvious.

I welcome the proposal to put the authority on a statutory basis and I welcome the legal changes, which are necessary. I am concerned about some of the wording in those legal changes, particularly surrounding directors, and I hope this matter will be thrashed out comprehensively on Committee Stage. It will be a while before we return to this topic again, so it is important we get it right.

The Minister of State referred in his initial statement to a 20%, or €1 million, increase in the budget, bringing the current budget to €6 million, and to 14 additional civil servants and nine additional gardaí, giving a total personnel improvement to the agency of 50%. While I welcome all that, I have to reflect nevertheless that €6 million seems an extraordinarily small sum to deal with such an important matter. I realise that this is not the sole agency dealing with white-collar crime, in that it is also dealt with by the Garda fraud squad etc. but corporate crime is a multibillion euro international business. It is one of the biggest growth areas of crime in this country. While the budget for this year would appear to be €6 million, if a number of cases come on board and the people running the agency feel constrained by the fact that their budget is limited, will investigations be delayed unnecessarily? Sometimes these investigations of necessity have to take place pretty quickly. I would like to see a more open-ended arrangement whereby the agency can access funding as it needs it. I would also like the Minister to give a breakdown of how the €6 million will be spent. I presume the extra gardaí will be paid from the Garda budget. Is a specific amount set out for bringing in outside experts, as will often be necessary in cases like this? I say that because white-collar corporate crime has a number of very significant consequences for this country. First, there is an obvious loss of revenue to the Exchequer, which could be spent on social projects. Second, as the pandemic comes to an end the economy of this country will, it is hoped, rebound. That will depend to a large extent on foreign direct investment, the importance of which will not reduce in the years to come or in the immediate future anyway. To attract foreign direct investment, we cannot afford the reputation of the country to be damaged by the notion or perception that we are soft on corporate crime.

Most importantly, I have seen nothing that undermines respect for the law more than the notion that if you are rich or a corporate entity, you can get away with it, that is, there is one law for one section of society and a different set of rules for the other. As I said, that has undermined respect for the rule of law in this country and that is very unhealthy. We have to be ruthless in regard to white-collar corporate crime. To be ruthless, we need not only the laws and the structure, we need proper financing. We can have lots of law and very little order. You can have all the laws in the world and all the structures in the world but without adequate financing they will not work.

I compliment the Minister of State on bringing forward the legislation. There are some amendments that I feel will be necessary but they will be, I am sure, dealt with as the legislation goes through Committee Stage. I would like to think that the budget is not fixed such that if it appears that the agency will exceed its budget in any particular year, there will be extra money available rather than the agency having to go cap-in-hand to the Minister for Finance year in and year out. That is the least the country deserves.

See this speech in context