Michael McDowell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

There are a few points I want to make to the Minister on the detail of the Government amendments to section 27. As I understand it, the intent of amendment No. 66 is to amend the introductory part of section 27(1) to provide that there has to be written consent for the disclosure of confidential information. Amendment No. 66 proposes - it is phrased peculiarly - to insert "without the consent in writing of the Commission or (save where the intending discloser is the Director) the Director or except as required by law or in the circumstances provided for in subsection (3)". What I think the proposed amendment is trying to achieve is if the director proposed to make a disclosure, he would have to have the permission of the commission. I think that is what it is driving at. Strangely, it seems that if a member of the staff of the director, or a member of staff directed by the director, disclosed the information, that person would not require the permission of the commission. It seems to be somewhat illogical that the commission must give consent in writing if the director intends to disclose something but a member of staff can obtain permission from the director without the commission's intervention, providing that the director puts it in writing. I wonder if that is really what is intended. It seems that the only member of staff who actually needs permission from the commission is the director and that members of staff, other than the director, or people who are not even members of staff for that matter because it applies to "a person" and could apply, for instance, to the so-called consultants and advisers do not have to have the permission of the commission. They can do it on the written authorisation of the director. That is one anomaly I see in the way amendment No. 66 has been drafted. Perhaps I am missing something and the Minister will put me right.

One will see that the following amendment has been designed to exclude all references to advisers and consultants on the basis that it is my strong opinion that we do not need consultants and advisers. It seems that what is being planned but never admitted openly is that much of the work of the commission will be farmed out to recruitment advisers in interviewing and short-listing people. They will perform a winnowing out of supposedly unacceptable people and produce smaller lists for consideration by the commission. I am deeply unhappy at the notion that some group such as Ernst & Young or KPMG or some reputable group-----