Ivana Bacik (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I should have welcomed the Minister of State to the House in my earlier contribution. I support the spirit behind the amendment tabled by Senator McDowell and I thank him for putting it forward. On Second Stage, I agreed with him and, indeed, with other colleagues who also raised this concern about what I might describe as an overreach of provisions relating to politically exposed persons. As I stated on Second Stage, I was not aware of how far the measures extended until I heard the comments of my colleague, Deputy Howlin, in the Dáil concerning a member of the Labour Party national executive who had discovered themselves to be included within a definition of a politically exposed person. As Deputy Howlin stated in the Dáil, he was approached by the member, who asked what this meant and what it entailed for the member.

As Senator McDowell stated, this exposes an overreach that may have the very unfortunate effect of deterring people from getting involved in national politics. It may not deter people from entering politics and being elected. All those present are elected persons and it is clear that we are politically exposed. However, to deter people from being involved in the internal workings of political parties seems to be somewhat over zealous. I am not sure whether I would describe it as equality thought - I think that is the term used by Senator McDowell - but it does call into question the necessity of the reach of these provisions.

In tabling the amendment, Senator McDowell has done us a service in enabling us to interrogate how far these measures should extend.We all know the reasoning behind these measures and the importance of having strong and robust safeguards in place against political corruption, but there is a question mark as to how far these measures need to extend. As I said, until Senator McDowell spoke about his adult children being covered, I had not been aware of that aspect of the reach. I think all of us are aware that it extends not only to us but also to our partners and spouses. This can lead to serious implications in deterring people from coming into political office. Is this really necessary to guard against corruption? That is the question, particularly when one considers, as Senator McDowell so eloquently put it, our lack of executive power as Senators and indeed our lack of power in general, one might say. There is a question certainly about ensuring we distinguish appropriately between those who hold executive power and those who hold legislative power and indeed, in the Upper House, lesser legislative power, one might say, that is, power only to delay and amend, not power to veto legislation.

I also wish to draw a comparison involving this sort of overreach, as I have described it, and very zealous coverage of persons' partners and children and members of national executives and so on. An unfortunate comparison can be drawn in respect of the overreach of the measures to those people who are indirectly connected. The contrast I am drawing is between that and the appalling lack of sanction, it appears, against seriously corrupt and egregious breaches of human rights practices in other jurisdictions. I am thinking in particular of Russia. In my contribution on Second Stage I raised the need for us in Ireland to have a Magnitsky Act to ensure we have here the sorts of robust powers we should have to impose sanctions where we are concerned about serious breaches of human rights.

As this debate has been proceeding, I have been asked, as I am sure others will be, by people connected with Bill Browder to sign a letter initiated by a cross-party group of MEPs across Europe. The letter asks parliamentarians to express serious concern about the sentencing of Alexei Navalny, the opposition figure in Russia, and concerns about the breaches of human rights and the serious inroads into democracy we are seeing being perpetrated by the regime in Russia. That is where we see the sharp end of breaches of human rights and democracy, and of corrupt practices. It is really unfortunate that there seems to be a lack of capacity to impose sanctions in that context yet we are looking at Central Bank regulations that seem to go beyond what is necessary in the fight against corruption.

I renew my call for us to introduce a Magnitsky Act here that enables us in Ireland to implement a regime of targeted sanctions. I said on Second Stage that we have seen such legislation brought in in the US and in other European jurisdictions, including Britain, and it is long overdue here. I was happy to have heard Bill Browder speak in Leinster House some years ago, I think, about the need for such legislation. I know there is cross-party support for the sort of legislation that should be brought forward. Deputy Howlin and others have spoken on it in the Dáil. I thank Senator McDowell for tabling this amendment and enabling us to have this debate. I hope we might see a positive response from the Government, particularly on Report Stage of the Bill.