Amendment No. 74 is an alternative to amendment No. 73 and both may be taken together by agreement.
SECTION 16.
I move amendment No. 73:
In page 12, subsection (1)(a), line 31, to delete "£1,500" and substitute "£3,000".
I tabled those amendments in November 1995 but now I would go with Deputy McDowell's amendment.
Amendment No. 74 refers to "a term of imprisonment of not less than 1 year". Can you say "less than one year"?
Yes.
I do not think you can.
That should read "not more than one year".
Is one year enough?
On summary conviction you are into serious trouble if you go over a year.
What about an indictment? You will have to change amendment No. 76 which refers to "not less than 5 years".
It should read "not more than 5 years". I do not know how that happened.
He might be very good on his feet, but he is no draftsman.
The word "less" is the reverse of what was intended; it is "not more than". I will take that as an oral amendment to these amendments.
They are all well amended at this stage.
Subsection (1) provides penalties for witnesses who fail to obey a direction to appear before a committee, who refuse to answer questions if they do appear, who refuse to provide documents or who do anything before a committee that would amount to a contempt of court if done in a court of law. The penalties as stated in the Bill are maximum fines of £1,500 on summary conviction and £20,000 on indictment. The Bill sets out the circumstances in which offences are committed and provides the penalties for them. The actual prosecution of alleged offenders would, of course, take place through the courts in the normal way. There is absolutely no question of an Oireachtas committee fining anybody.
Amendment No. 73 would provide for an increase in the fine on summary conviction from £1,500 to £3,000. I am advised that £1,500 is the current maximum fine being imposed by the District Court on summary convictions and I suggest that we leave this fine at that level. Amendment No. 74 would provide for an increase in the fine on summary conviction from £1,500 to £3,000 and for a term of imprisonment of up to one year. Once again the level of maximum fine in the District Court on summary convictions comes into play. Amendment No. 75 provides for an increase in the fine on indictment from £20,000 to £50,000 while amendment No. 76 provides for a similar increase in the fine or for a term of imprisonment of not more than five years — with the oral amendment — or both.
In principle, I accept the intention of the amended amendments and I will bring forward an amendment on Report Stage.
There will be a possibility of imprisonment?
Yes.
Is the Minister of State agreeing to the term of imprisonment of one year on summary conviction?
There will be a prison sentence; it may be six months.
The important point is that the penalties are not just fines which rich people could pay easily.
I accept that £1,500 would not frighten those who are well off.
A fine of £50,000 will not frighten the people who might be involved whereas a term of five years in prison would do so.
One year would scare many people in that category of people. It is the principle of jail that is important. We do not want to cost the State a fortune.
Perhaps the fine should be £100,000 or £200,000. Some courts will not impose a term of imprisonment for this.
If somebody was convicted on indictment and, therefore, it was not a minor offence, it would be a serious insult to the Houses of the Oireachtas if the court only imposed a monetary penalty. I agree with Deputy O'Malley that £50,000 is not a great amount. Fines of £200,000 are being imposed on fishermen, for example.
The possibility of imprisonment is the sanction that is needed and that has been accepted.
The Minister of State should not feel obliged to stick to the £50,000 limit.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment Nos. 74 to 76, inclusive, not moved.
Sections 16 and 17 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
I thank the Chairman, the staff and the Deputies for their co-operation on Committee Stage.
Will the secretariat provide us with a list of amendments which have been promised or are to be revisited?
We can discuss that in private session.
Report of Sub-Committee.
I propose the following draft report:
The sub-committee of the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs has considered the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges and Immunities of Witnesses) Bill, 1995, and has made amendments thereto. The Bill, as amended, is reported to the Dáil.
Report agreed to.
Ordered to report to the Dáil accordingly.
The sub-committee adjourned at 8.10 p.m.