The section states that unauthorised disclosure of confidential information by a director will constitute an offence. Will the Minister tell us what the specific offence is and what the penalty will be?
SECTION 33.
Question proposed: "That section 33 stand part of the Bill."
The purpose of this section is to protect the port companies from the unauthorised disclosure of sensitive information about the development, maintenance and security of their ports. Similar statutory protection was given by the Postal and Telecommunication Services Act, 1983, and the Irish Aviation Authority Act, 1993.
Section 33 (1) prohibits the disclosure of confidential information obtained by a person — for example, a director, an employee, an adviser or a consultant— while performing duties for the company, which is not authorised by the company or by their authorised nominee, as provided for in section 33 (3). Section 33 (2) makes it an offence for any person to contravene subsection (1).
Section 6— the penalties and proceedings section of the Bill — will apply to such offences. In accordance with section 6, a person guilty of an offence under section 33 will be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both, or on indictment to a fine not exceeding £100,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or both. Section 6 empowers the port companies to bring summary proceedings in cases of offences under the Bill. Only the Director of Public Prosecutions may bring proceedings for indictable offences.
When I was a Minister one of the companies under my jurisdiction was the Irish Sugar company, now Greencore. There was a number of worker directors on the board of that company. It was said to me on occasion that the company found great difficulty in operating because the proceedings of the meetings were often relayed by some of the worker directors who were vying for favours with the people who voted them onto the board. It is a natural temptation to try to keep in with the people who have voted for one. I presume the worker directors will be voted on in the normal manner, as is the case with every State company which has worker directors. The temptation to release classified and sensitive information would be considerable.
When the Minister read out the list of penalties he did not refer to an offending board member — whether he is a worker director or otherwise — being removed. I presume that if a board member was found guilty of an offence the automatic sanction would be his or her removal from the board. Can the Minister enlighten me?
Obviously, I cannot comment on Deputy Deasy's experiences with the sugar company. It is probably fair to say that the problem of disclosing confidential information from State companies is not wholly or exclusively confined to worker directors. Recently there has been a number of well publicised examples of such disclosures and it would appear that the source of the information was not the worker directors. I would not like to let it pass uncontested that in some way worker directors are less trustworthy in how they carry out their work.
Deputy Deasy asked specifically about the removal of a board member. There is no provision for automatic removal of a board member arising from the commission of an offence. However, the Minister has the power to remove board members and that power extends to all board members, irrespective of whether they are appointed by the Minister or are elected by local authorities or employees. If a prosecution is successfully brought against a director for disclosure of confidential information I imagine the Minister would avail of it to remove a board member.
The Minister has answered my question. Following the conviction of a board member he or she should automatically be disqualified.
Question put and agreed to.