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

I am glad to have an opportunity to speak on this legislation. Following on from the points raised by my colleague, I am in favour of keeping the integrity of the system to the fore at all times. That encourages investment and helps to create jobs and a society at ease with itself. However, I have dealt with a number of cases recently wherein it has emerged that politicians and Members of Parliament are identified as potential money launderers. I do not know where that came from but it is already there. It is in the banking system here and has been raised on numerous occasions. A number of colleagues I have spoken with realised for the first time that they are deemed to be in the high risk category, "people of special interest" is the phrase, insofar as money laundering is concerned. I find that objectionable in the extreme, and I am sure that applies to everybody in this House. It would be extremely unpatriotic if a Member of Parliament were to become involved in money laundering and criminal activity.

None of us would try to justify that.

The point raised by my colleague a couple of minutes ago verifies and underlines the concerns I have, in particular at a time when the banking system here has become depersonalised to a great extent. We do not have the same structure in a bank that was there ten, 15 or 20 years ago. I do not know, but there may be good reasons for the changeover. However, I know that there was personal attention available to customers from all banks. The customer is the most important person. We all believe that the needs of customers in all such situations must be met if we want to have a satisfactory co-operation between them and banks and lending institutions of all sorts.

Like everybody else, I have dealt with a number of cases in recent years whereby drug mules were used to carry drugs. They were invariably people who were identified as having financial difficulties at the time and would do virtually anything to get out of their difficulties. It was made known to them that if they were to drive a vehicle for a couple of miles along a road somewhere that their financial difficulty would be resolved. Sums of up to €20,000 or €30,000, and in one case €40,000, were offered for a person to drive a truck. Invariably again, the mules were caught and put behind bars, rightly so. The fools went that road without consulting anybody. They were vulnerable and under financial pressure. Perhaps they were under family pressure. A whole lot of situations arose. I know that they should not have done it and that they deserved to be punished for their crimes, but to a large extent they were innocent. They did not go that route of their own volition. They did not set out to do that, but they paid for it.

I agree that the integrity of the financial services sector musts be protected, especially as the country is an open economy that trades with many countries all over the world. Citizens of Ireland have invested all over the world and continue to do so. Similarly, we depend on foreign direct investment, FDI, quite a lot in this country, understandably so. It is also understandable that we are able to give a clear indication to possible investors that we have a financial sector on which we can base our future with clarity, conviction and confidence. Any movement otherwise creates a problem.

The political fraternity seem to be in the front line where this is concerned, and under suspicion. I do not know of anybody in this House who would have done anything to incur such suspicion. I deeply resent and reject the notion that somebody sitting in a call centre perhaps 500 miles or 1,000 miles from here could decide that an individual is a person of special interest when it comes to money laundering. There is a need to come up with something more substantive than that, as it could undermine the integrity of our system. It could also undermine the basis on which we operate and the people with whom we converse and whom we trust. If we do not have the trust of the institutions that are around us and that we deal with on a regular basis, then we are lacking in something.

Last evening, I was making representations to a utility company on behalf of a group of citizens on the one hand and a contractor on the other hand. I was informed that if I was representing the constituents only, I could do so, but if I was representing the contractor, who was also a constituent, I would have to get permission from the contractor in order to make the representation and get a response to it. I replied to the effect that, like everybody else in this House, on the day of the election I was given permission and authority by the electorate to represent everybody, regardless of who they were or who they were for or against. I reserve that right and I reject absolutely any attempt by any utility authority to deny that. In recent times, there have been a good few that have tried to interpose themselves between the public representative and the system in order to ensure that they did not have to answer the question at all. That is effectively what it comes down to. I strongly object to that and I am sure that everybody in this House objects to it. Unless we raise these questions regularly, they will continue and that vice-like grip will continue also.

Freedom operates in more ways than one. We all like to believe that we live in a society that has freedoms. That is a central part of membership of the European Union. If those freedoms are being eroded or curtailed in order to deal with lawlessness, forgery or whatever the case may be in terms of breaching the law, then the people who are breaching the law are the first ones who should be faced down and dealt with, not the innocent citizens who are going about their business in their ordinary way. Even some local authorities ask if we have permission from the constituents to represent them. What about the situation that is being raised that is against the interests of the constituent? Is it to be assumed that we will have to go to the person about whom we are to make a complaint and ask if it is all right to make representations against his or her interests? That is how daft the situation can become at a particular time.

I agree with the general thrust of the proposal, but I raise serious questions about where we are heading when it comes to the kind of implications that are created for ourselves. We seem to be in the front line, in so far as being condemned whether we like it or not, to being complicit in international activity of a dubious nature. I wish to register those few points in the hope that they inform the course of the debate. This is not in any way a personal attack on the Minister of State. I know that these things have to be done, but we must also question what we are doing notwithstanding how much we approve of them.

See this speech in context