Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 29 Mar 1995

SECTION 25.

Question proposed: "That section 25 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Connolly

Deputy McDowell and others will know that I had serious reservations about this part of the Bill last year. With regard to frivolous accusations the amount is limited to £1,000. A cartel in a constituency could get together and provide an individual with the necessary finance to cause a Member of either House a considerable amount of inconvenience, difficulty and embarrassment. As Deputy Nealon stated, it would be very difficult for that Member to clear his name and it could affect him in an election.

At that time, I said to the Minister that the sum of £1,000 was too low and I will table an amendment on Report Stage that that should be £10,000. We are living in a sophisticated world which, I regret to say, is not the same as when I entered Parliament. Allegations made about a Member with another line of business, such as a barrister or a company director such as myself, could have very serious consequences for them. People could put forward frivolous complaints to get at me because I was going for election. I would then lose my seat in the Dáil and there would be nothing I could do about it. That could happen to any Member.

The limit of £1,000, which I admit that the Minister put forward in good faith, is a paltry amount and it should be increased to £10,000. It will be recoverable as a simple contract in the courts. Knowing the courts as I do, with all due respect to my distinguished legal colleagues here, that could be a very slow and expensive process. How far can one go here? Could those that had brought that claim but could not substantiate it go to prison? Could they get three months or ten years?

Mr. Nealon

Meanwhile the accused Member may be out of the Dáil and in the Seanad.

Mr. Connolly

They may not end up in the Seanad either; it could be their swan song. Like Deputy Nealon, I have weathered many a storm and survived a long time. I am not happy with that provision. I understand what it means, but I do not agree with its implementation and the level of fine involved.

Ms E. Fitzgerald

This section parallels section 11 which covers awards of costs by select committees and we had a full debate on this section where it applied to Members. The two sections are mirror images. After that debate, I undertook to come back on that point on Report Stage with appropriate amendments. The reason we have not come back on this section is because the changes we propose to sections 25 and 11 will be the same, which is why I have left section 25 as it is for the time being.

Mr. Connolly

I thank the Minister for this, but we will be putting down amendments on that matter on Report Stage because I am not happy with that situation. Members of both Houses must be protected. I will not stand here and allow them to be dragged into the gutter by groundless assaults made by a cartel or other arrangement designed to put them out of office.

Mr. Nealon

I agree with Deputy Connolly in seeking much more severe penalties in this case. Indeed, I would be pushing for this fine to be raised to £20,000. I do not know how the terms "frivolous" or "vexatious" are defined legally, but I know the general area at which they are getting. However, other types of complaints can be made in bad faith and without foundation designed to undermine a serving Dáil Deputy or Senator. It is a difficult matter to assess how one would define that type of complaint, but one of the automatic inhibiting factors is that any person or persons attempting a conspiracy of this nature would face a substantial fine if their complaint was judged to be frivolous or vexatious. Perhaps some other terminology could be added. It may not be too difficult to have a grading of the types of irrelevant, vexatious or frivolous complaints, although it may not be possible to grade them on a scale from one to ten.

The £1,000 penalty is not an inhibition. A group of people could come together and finger a Deputy or Senator. Their timing would be perfect if they made a complaint three months before an election, which would ensure that the person against whom their complaint is made would have no opportunity of recovery. All Members fear any kind of false report just before or during an election campaign and we would immediately ensure that the correct view is made known to the public. Complaints like that can do extraordinary damage and I agree with making a substantial increase in these penalties.

Acting Chairman

This is a most difficult situation. During an election, if candidates had to pass remarks on everything that was said about them the night they come in from the canvass, they would be driven made. Candidates have to ignore 95 per cent — even 100 per cent — of these remarks, if possible.

Mr. Nealon

There is a wide difference between what one hears off the back of a lorry in an election campaign and an official complaint made to an organisation set up by this House under legislation. That would get an aura of its own that there must be something in it if it has got to this stage. It is like a case appearing in the Four Courts.

Acting Chairman

I see the difficulty there as well, but I would be very wary of Members incurring costs when defending themselves. I know a man who bought a bull in Connemara for £1,600 and it did not sire any calves. The farmer took an action against the person who sold it to him, it has cost him £13,560 so far and the case has still not finished.

Mr. Nealon

And there was no change in the bull?

Acting Chairman

And no calves. This is a true story because the man involved was at my clinic last week.

Mr. M. McDowell

What advice did you give him, Chairman?

Acting Chairman

I told him to stay away from courts and barristers.

Mr. Penrose

This is a perfect example of getting in line.

Mr. McCreevy

The point about increasing the limit on costs has been well made and I know the Minister will come back to it on Report Stage. However, section 25 (b) states: "Where, in relation to an investigation under section 22, amounts are ordered to be paid under paragraph (a) to more than one person, the aggregate of those amounts shall not exceed £1,000."

To whom should these amounts be paid? Is the commission looking for expenses?

Ms E. Fitzgerald

This section refers to an award of costs. Two people could be entitled to costs against somebody who makes a malicious complaint. This section provides that the aggregate amount paid to somebody would be capped. This will be looked at again when we come back to these two sections on Report Stage.

Question put and agreed to.