In accordance with an order of the Dáil yesterday, Report Stage will now be taken. Since there are no amendments on Report Stage–
Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) (Amendment) Bill, 2002: Report and Final Stages.
Acting Chairman
As we have only just completed Committee Stage, may I ask that my Committee Stage amendment No. 3 be taken as a Report Stage amendment? We have literally gone from one Stage to the other and, therefore, there has not been an opportunity to circulate it.
Acting Chairman
While there are no amendments formally for Report Stage, because of the type of time schedule, I will agree to take that amendment.
In that case, may I resubmit Committee Stage amendment No. aa1 in my name also?
Acting Chairman
As it was negatised on Committee Stage, it cannot be taken on Report Stage.
Can we vote on it?
Acting Chairman
No, it cannot be taken.
Then I must find another issue on which to vote.
I sincerely hope the Deputy does. We can have a vote.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 7, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following subsection:
"(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €300,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or both.".
This amendment seeks to insert an additional subsection in section 7. Section 7 provides for the offences in circumstances where a person, by act or omission, obstructs or hinders an investigator attached to a tribunal in the performance of his or her functions, or fails or refuses to comply with a requirement made to the person.
The Bill prescribes, in section 7(1), that a person who so acts is guilty of an offence. Prosecution can only be brought, under subsection (2), by or with the consent of the DPP. Under subsection (3), it is prescribed that a person guilty of such an offence shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than €3,000 and-or 12 months imprisonment.
On Second Stage I made the case that the penalties were too low, in particular, in circumstances where someone might have refused to co-operate, been through the courts and fined, and then still refuse to co-operate, and that there should be a possibility of bringing a charge on indictment in such cases.
We discovered that the penalty of £10,000, which was originally in the Tribunal of Inquiries Act and which could be imposed for failure to co-operate with the tribunal itself, was far too low and it took the judgment in the proceedings involving Deputy Lawlor to deal with that issue. Approximately one year later, the Minister is providing for a far larger fine of €300,000 to address that issue as a consequence of the Private Members' Bill, which I published on behalf of Fine Gael, which sought, before we reached euroland, to increase the fine to £250,000. There should be a similar possible offence on indictment, particularly for people who repetitively fail to co-operate with investigators.
In the circumstances, I propose that section 7 be amended by the inclusion of the following subsection (4), which reads: "A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €300,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or both." That would give the Director of Public Prosecutions an option whether to proceed summarily in the District Court or by way of indictment in a higher court against a person who fails to comply with the requirements of an investigator properly appointed and operating functions prescribed by this legislation. I ask the Minister to take the amendment on board. Taking it on board will create an option for the DPP in circumstances where a failure to co-operate has a particularly serious impact on the working of a tribunal. The DPP should have the option of taking summary proceedings or proceedings on indictment. I hope the Minister will accept this amendment in the terms in which it is proposed.
As I said in my address on Second Stage, it is appropriate that if a person does not co-operate with an investigation, he or she could be the subject of summary conviction. Most importantly, the investigator can seek a High Court order compelling co-operation. Therefore, if the person in question is unco-operative, he or she runs the risk of unlimited penalties at the hands of the High Court. In addition, if a person fails to co-operate with an investigator, the logical consequence is that the tribunal itself would take the view that there is something to inquire into. The tribunal can use the powers vested in itself to summarily examine that person. If he or she continues to be unco-operative, then he or she would expose himself or herself to conviction on indictment or summary treatment or further application for a High Court order. Therefore, the Deputy's amendment is, in a practical sense, superfluous and could be viewed as disproportionate. The analogy to Deputy Lawlor is invalid because his circumstances pertained not to an offence but to contempt.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.