David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

First, let me correct the record of the House. In reference to section 11 my understanding is that somebody will cease to be a member of the board if he or she is adjudicated to be bankrupt. Although Senator Diarmuid Wilson said he was pleased to see that bankrupts could be on the board, he is completely incorrect. They cannot be members of the board. That is a grey area. I do not see why they should not, depending on the circumstances of the bankruptcy, but in my Second Stage speech I referred to the next sentence in subsection (3)(b), which reads that a person shall be excluded from membership of the board if he or she “makes a composition or arrangement with creditors”. Harry Crosbie is someone for whom I have the greatest of respect. He is responsible for the Grand Canal Theatre and has created something vital in the artistic life of this city. He has made a composition with his creditors. It is absolute lunacy that he would not be allowed to be a member of the board and I said so at the time. I do not see any reason to include such a provision. Unfortunately, my good friend Senator Diarmuid Wilson is wrong, bankrupts are not allowed to be members of the board. Those who make arrangements with creditors are not allowed to be on it. That is ridiculous, in particular in the case of members of the artistic community where people take a gamble on a production. A Broadway show could go down the drain just like that; everyone is expecting it to make millions, but it just bombs.

The Minister has parroted the phrase that the measure is included in other legislation. That does not make it good legislation and does not render it immune to examination or scrutiny in this House. She also instanced the issue of funding. Why should someone who is involved at the coalface in the theatre or the National Concert Hall not come into this House and express a clear, cogent and factual position? We are entitled to know. Again, that is gagging. Members of this House are entitled to receive full information. I simply do not understand this. It is not as if the individual Member was grubbing around in his or her wallet and going to put in a counter bid for something. That would be a conflict of interest, but this is not. This is a convergence of interests where the fact that a person is a Member of the Seanad and a board member puts them in a position where he or she can give a particularly illuminating answer to questions raised in this House. The Minister can push the Bill through and use the force of numbers to win the vote, but if she wins it, she will not win the argument because there is absolutely no reason to include this provision. That it is tradition is not an argument. It is not a good idea, regardless of the fact that it has been included so many times in legislation and the Ministers responsible have got away with it. It is not a good idea if it is bad legislation. I am convinced that this is bad legislation and it is also insulting to the House.

Senator Diarmuid Wilson referred to members of county councils. I remember when they were forbidden from holding such board memberships. Why are they allowed to do so now? Hello - may we have an answer to that question?