Malcolm Byrne (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House on the Bill. I thank his officials who have worked on this matter, as well as the members of the joint committee. I know the Minister of State has engaged with my colleague, Senator Crowe, on this issue. As the Minister of State pointed out, the Bill is an important commitment as part of the programme for Government. It is sending out a clear message that we take white collar crime very seriously. There is sometimes a perception that white collar crime is not investigated or pursued to the same extent as other crimes, but white collar crime does have real-world consequences and the Government is serious about addressing it.

With advances in technology, we are seeing new forms of economic crime. It is increasingly sophisticated, so it will be important for this new agency to work hand in glove with the National Cyber Security Centre to address white-collar crime that uses new technology.

An important issue to which the Minister of State referred is that there is no point setting up an agency unless it is properly resourced, not just in terms of staffing numbers but with the level and range of qualifications necessary for it to be established. He will be aware that there have been criticisms of the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement, ODCE. Some of these concerns have merit, such as those relating to staffing levels and the budget that has been provided to date. We are setting up a new agency with clear and strong powers, but my concern is that if it does not have the necessary resources, there will be difficulties. I refer to the example of the Data Protection Commission, DPC. As the Minister of State is aware, several questions are being raised in that regard and much of that is down to the adequacy of the resourcing of the DPC even though that office has many powers.

There are questions relating to the membership of the authority. I am conscious this issue was raised at the joint committee, but also in a submission by Professor Deirdre Ahern of Trinity College Dublin. The committee and Professor Ahern recommended that the minimum number of members of the authority should be increased to two and the maximum number to five. This would represent good practice. I again refer to the DPC. It has only one commissioner, whereas many of its counterparts have three. That would certainly make a lot of sense.

I have noticed a trend in much legislation whereby Members of these Houses are rightly excluded from consideration for appointment as members of the authority, but members of a local authority are also excluded. I have to question why that is necessarily the case. I do not believe that a councillor should be able to tell the Minister that he or she should be appointed, but a person who has the necessary skill set, such as a forensic account, should not be excluded just because he or she happens to be a member of a local authority. This issue does not just relate to this legislation; it is a wider issue in respect of why members of local authorities continue to be excluded from serving on a range of State boards. I am certainly not suggesting that a person be appointed simply because he or she is a councillor, but if the person meets all the other necessary criteria in order to be able to serve, he or she should not be excluded on that ground.

It certainly makes sense to consider increasing in the number of members of the authority in order to future proof it, share the load and get the combined wisdom of several members. It also makes sense to consider the resourcing question. Those are key areas. Other than that, this is a good piece of work. It is putting real teeth into this new agency. Its independence is protected, which is a good thing, and it is delivering on a commitment in the programme for Government. I strongly support the legislation.