Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

It is clear that the basic architecture is there, and I accept that the declaration of interests indicates that action may be taken, but there is a very different level of seriousness in respect of these measures in terms of removal. It is not enough to simply say there may be provision that appropriate action may be taken. Again, we must bear in mind that many of these actors will potentially be influential and could apply significant pressure. This is for every future Government down the line, so it is important that we do not have any ambiguity on the issue of a conflict of interest.

I accept there is a requirement to declare and a provision for the Minister to decide the action, as well as the commission itself being able to decide if it wants to terminate, but the Minister is only given the right to determine an action, whereas if that was named in section 12(5)(d) as a failure to properly and appropriately declare an interest, it would make it very clear that the Minister has that power.

At the moment, the power under section 12(5)(c) on the removal of a commissioner from office by the Government refers to "a conflict of interest of such significance". That is ambiguous and implies that there is a burden of proof whereby the Minister has to prove how significant it is and how it was a major breach, whereas that would not be the case if there was a reference to declaration of interests from the get-go. We should not wait for a situation to arise where it has become a huge conflict. It should not be the case that a person cannot declare his or her interests and then claim to have simply forgotten and for it then to be said that, luckily, no significant decision came about as a result of that. The very fact of the omission of a declaration of interest of itself should be a ground whereby the Government not "must" but "may" remove a commissioner rather than it having to be proven to have been of great significance that he or she did not do so.