: I move amendment No. 27:
In page 24, subsection (1) (a) (ii), line 44, after "aforesaid,", to insert "and".
SECTION 34
Amendment agreed to.
: I move amendment No. 28:
In page 25, subsection (2), line 5, to delete "or (2)".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 34, as amended, stand part of the Bill".
(Limerick East): While it would be normal for directors of a company to declare interests in any matter discussed at board level where a conflict might arise, it is not clear-cut when you extend similar provisions to employees of a company down to the most junior employee. Will the Minister outline his thinking behind section 34? Why does he think it is necessary that specific provisions, where employees of the company might be involved in any other activity, would be seen to be in conflict? A person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2) shall be guilty of an offence. I would like to know the specific offence and the sanction in relation to it. Will the Minister also indicate in what other legislation it is mandatory on employees of semi-State companies to declare interest? Were there similar provisions in the setting up of An Post, Telecom Éireann and Coillte Teoranta and other bodies?
: This section provides that members of the staff of the company shall not influence decisions of a company in which they have a personal or financial interest. It is in line with section 33 governing the behaviour of directors. Section 34 (1) (b) ensures that staff may negotiate with the company in relation to their salaries and conditions of service and those of other staff members. This allows people to negotiate on their own behalf and also for trade union representatives to negotiate on behalf of their members.
This section creates an offence for which the maximum penalties are, on summary conviction, a fine of £1,000 and or 12 months imprisonment and on conviction on indictment a fine of £100,000 or three years imprisonment. The guidelines for State bodies as issued by the Department of Finance in 1992 require State bodies to have a written code of conduct for employees covering among other matters avoidance of conflict of interest. This section is in line with those guidelines but more stringent in that it creates an offence.
: On the point raised by Deputies Noonan and Haughey, that the company must have a commercial outlook there is no doubt. It must be competitive and cannot just be a body of "yes men" or political appointees who would be able to mark time. That would be a waste of time for all of us. The difficulty about that is that we are living in a small country, with a small number of companies and our commercial record has not been good. One could get the people that Deputy Haughey is speaking about who have a commercial track record and who would give their time to the State to help our aviation policy and I would support that viewpoint. Our difficulty has been to get people of that calibre who will use their expertise and experience on behalf of the Irish people.
Guinness Peat Aviation is in the doldrums at present but it has some fine people of that calibre and expertise. While the company is in an eclipse now I would ask the Minister to consider some of the people who have survived in a most competitive volatile market, who have a great deal of experience built up over the years and whose talents and skills and expertise would be helpful to us in this regard. Apart from that there are few examples of successful Irish aviation companies. If there were I would cast the net much further.
(Limerick East): I do not have a problem with the requirements on directors in section 33. It is the requirements in section 34 on employees of the company that I would have a certain unease about. As far as I know there is no precedent in law for such a requirement on the employees of State companies and while the Minister refers to the code of practice which was issued in 1992, after the series of scandals we had, about the way directors and employees of State companies whould behave, that is a code of practice in a Department of Finance circular which certainly has authority but does not have the authority of the law in the manner which the Minister now seeks.
There are two issues which are contradictory or may be paradoxical rather than contradictory. I wonder about the appropriateness of placing criminal sanctions on employees of companies in such a pervasive way that they would apply to everybody down the line. It seems that if there is such a concern about conflicts of interest that the person employed who has some other activity which is in conflict should not be employed. It raises the issues of a real fear of the appropriateness of after hours activity being carried out by full time employees of the company. If, for example, somebody was an employee of the Irish Aviation Authority and at the same time had a financial interest either in a supply company or in an aircraft company, where a conflict would arise I presume arrangements would be made which would keep the interests at arms length. For example, would there be a disclosure requirement if it is the spouse who is involved in the business or members of the family? How does the Minister see this operating?
I am not sure if I am making myself clear to the Minister but this makes me uneasy. It has not been done before. All of a sudden there is a section going into a Bill where employees of a company, if they are involved in discussions have to declare interests. It is a little peculiar and a precedent is being established and I would not like to let it go through without further discussion.
: Deputy Noonan is correct when he refers to this being the first time that we are enshrining this in legislation. The guidelines were drawn up in 1992. They are not enshrined in legislation. We have looked at those and at the important new authority we are about to create. It has important powers and services to provide particularly in relation to the safety of people. It would be constantly dealing with the safety of people in transit. It will be able to impose strong legal powers and based on that we felt it is absolutely important that we enshrine in law these specific conditions. They will apply to all members of staff and, of course, to all directors.
We do not envisage that we are going to be considering what spouses are doing or their activities. It would be applicable to those who are employed and directing the operations but we feel it is important because this authority will be regulating itself, licensing its staff and doing work of that type. It is important that the safety of people and the importance of the work being carried out by the Authority is acknowledged and that there is no doubt or ambiguity about the ethics that would be required and the conditions attaching to employment. We are enshrining it in law in the interests of the future of the company, the performance of the staff and the directors of the company in the years ahead.
: Will this set a precedent for other bodies?
: I cannot comment on that but I presume it may be used as a precedent for other bodies. I do not know. This is particular to this authority because we see this as a special company.
: What led to this being introduced for the first time?
: The importance of the job to be done and the safety of people which is vital. This company will be controlling the safety of people in the air, the airworthiness of the various air carriers that are on its register, the quality and standards of the staff and that those staff would be licensed to operate. In order that there would be no doubt about the ethics required and the conditions attaching to performance we have enshrined this in the Bill.
: Would that not be catered for in the qualifications of the people being employed rather than in their declaration of interest?
: We are now getting into the nitty gritty detail. If we have people operating for a State-sponsored company and performing a professional duty, they might have an interest in ancillary or similar activities that may impinge on their performance in the exercise of that duty. We have to guard against that arising and we are providing for it in this section.
Question put and agreed to.