Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 are consequential on amendment No. 75. Amendments Nos. 75, 77 and 78 may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move Amendment No. 75:

In page 33, subsection (1) (d), to delete lines 28 to 30.

This is a technical amendment following an amendment made to section 6 (4) which deals with this point. We are deleting it from this part of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 are consequential renumberings.

I move amendment No. 76:

In page 33, lines 35 to 44, to delete subsection (2) and substitute the following:

"(2) (a) Where the interests specified in section 16 (1) (a), 17 (2) (a) or 18 (3) (a) of a person to whom that section applies or of the spouse of such a person or of a child either of such a person or of the spouse of such a person change the person may at any time furnish a statement in writing of the change to the person or persons to whom statements under that provision are required to be furnished.

(b) Where a person fails to comply with section 16 (1) (a), 17 (2) (a) or 18 (3) (a), the person may at any time furnish a statement in writing of the interests concerned to the person or persons to whom statements under that provision are required to be furnished.

(c) Where a person to whom section 16 (1) (a), 17 (2) (a) or 18 (3) (a) applies is advised under section 24 or it appears from guidelines published under section 24 that an interest of the person or an interest of his or her spouse or a child of the person or of his or her spouse is an interest to which section 16 (1) (a), 17 (2) (a) or 18 (3) (a), as the case may be, applies, the person shall, as soon as may be after the receipt of the advice or, as the case may be, the publication of the guidelines, prepare and furnish to the person or persons to whom statements under that provision are required to be furnished a statement of the interest.".

This amendment is about the making of late statements and gives the same facilities to directors and public servants as is already given to Oireachtas Members and officeholders. It is a technical amendment.

My views are well known in the case of the child.

Yes and we can deal with them when we debate the section. We will take the amendments first.

I move amendment No. 77:

In page 33, subsection (4), line 51, to delete "Subparagraph (i) of subsection (1) (d)" and substitute "Section 6 (4) (b)".

Amendment No. 78 was already discussed with amendment No. 75.

I move amendment No. 78:

In page 34, subsection (4), line 2, to delete "subparagraph (ii) of".

Amendment No. 76 refers to the case of a child but I accepted the Chair's advice and did not refer to it until we debate the section, as amended.

Does this section cover statements made, if a person wants to make statements, outside the annual statement by Members?

That is correct.

Why was it felt necessary to have a section to deal with a person's voluntary admission when they want to make a statement? That is a matter of great interest to me so that I might understand the mind, if that is possible, of a parliamentary drafts-person.

On the position of making voluntary statements, if somebody's interests change following the purchase of shares during the year it may suit that person to register the shares at that stage, when the matter is fresh in the mind, rather than combing through all the changes made at the end of the year when it may be inconvenient to do so.

If the section had not been included in the Bill, this would happen in any event, and the person would seek to make an amendment to his or her original annual statement, but could not do so. It would be extraordinary if a person was not in a position to do this. However, this must be the case if it is necessary to include this section. Am I correct in assuming this?

We are advised that unless we make explicit provision for these voluntary statements, they would not come under the regime for the normal statements.

I take the Minister's view that this must be the situation, but arising from this will a Member be obliged to make an annual statement?

: Yes.

If, therefore, a Member does not wish to make amendments to any changes which occur throughout the year, he or she will have to do so and are statutorily obliged to make an annual statement.

: People are obliged to make two kinds of statement, the first an annual statement giving a general listing of interests and the second an ad hoc statement, where something arises in the performance of one’s functions, where one could have a material interest which could influence one in the performance of those functions. Those provisions apply across the board on a statutory basis.

It is, therefore, the annual statement which a person will have to make. If a person bought and sold shares in the course of a year, he or she would not have them at the date of the annual statement. In that instance, is the Minister obliged to include that in the annual statement?

The next annual statement would cover interests held in the period since the last annual statement.

Does this include sales, for example the sale of shares?

A Member could say, for example, that he or she held shares in X, Y, Z and it would be open to the Member to say that he or she also sold them.

In the case of a Member who makes the return at the end of March in a given year and purchases land in June, has he or she to then make a supplementary return and is it mandatory?

No. It is voluntary until the next return.

If the statement is made at the end of March in a given year and in the year following the Member loses his or her seat in a general election does a statement have to be made?

In the case, for example, of directors of State companies, they must make a declaration up to the time they leave.

He or she may manage to become a Member of the Seanad.

They would have to make a statement if they became a Member of the Seanad as they would continue to be a Member of the Oireachtas. However, in the case of holding a directorship of a semi-State company, the position is somewhat different. Is that correct?

Yes. It goes up to their full executive period.

With regard to outside income in relation to land holdings, a relationship which many Members of the House may have, is the size of the land holding to be declared? Does it take any account of the quality of the holding, for example does it refer to adjusted acres of land? At what stage is the Member obliged to declare the income from the land, and what is the position if the land or any holding of that kind shows a loss?

We will discuss this in detail when we consider the Second Schedule to the Bill. If income from an outside profession, trade or job comes to more than £2,000 per year, the Member must declare it. With regard to the land, Members are not obliged to provide the monetary value or adjusted acres or information of that kind. A simple declaration to the effect that he or she has a farm, for example, at X in County Roscommon is required.

However, the income does not have to be declared. Is that correct? This is vital.

No. Nobody is obliged to put a cash value on anything.

Everybody expects, rightly or wrongly, that running a farm generates income, but I am aware of many farms which generate losses rather than incomes. It is only fair that if one must declare a holding, which is expected to generate an income or profit, one should also be able to declare if it generates a loss. This could go a long way towards clarifying the misconceptions in people's minds as to what a business, land or any other kind of holding, generates.

The main purpose of the provision is to allow for factors such as rezoning which could affect the situation.

It is the issue of other income which concerns me.

The great controversies arise on the question of zoning. If a land holding is agricultural, it has a certain, obvious value. However, the controversies arise, especially where politicians are concerned where the zoning changes. They are always implicated in looking after themselves, which is not necessarily the case as those controversies can arise for other reasons. Nevertheless, the value of the holding or portfolio would change substantially under rezoning. Is this factor to be declared, given that a person could go from a holding of £100,000 to £10 million overnight?

On the question of separated couples — and the committee may have addressed this issue already — there is no divorce here yet . . .

Will the Deputy support divorce in the forthcoming referendum.

I certainly will, but we will not debate that issue here. However, take the case of a married couple where both partners were involved in a number of businesses, they have a judicial separation, and the children have gone with one spouse or the other. Out of existing businesses, other new business interests have been developed which may have some relationship to the existing businesses but may be separate, by virtue of the involvement of the children or spouse. What obligation then remains on the spouse who may be involved in some——

We dealt with this thoroughly on an earlier section.

That is why I prefaced my remarks that this issue may have already been clarified.

This issue was extensively addressed under section 2, the definitions section, and we can arrange to provide the Deputy with a copy of the debate. We do not require people to declare interests of a spouse when they are separated. It is more appropriate to discuss the points raised by Deputy Cullen and Deputy Connor on the Second Schedule to the Bill which we will, I hope, reach this morning.

Will the Minister outline the provisions of the section? It appears to deal with the discontinuance of investigations following complaints which appear to be frivolous or vexatious, and that the person who made the complaint and the person against whom the complaint was received must receive a report in writing. Is that correct?

It provides for what happens if the committee finds that a complaint is frivolous or vexatious or if something frivolous or vexatious gets through the screening mechanism of the Clerk, or if a complaint is made directly by a Member. We propose, on Report Stage, to insert in this section analogous provisions in respect of other claims which are frivolous or vexatious.

When addressing an earlier section, there was provision in one of the subsections for awarding costs of £1,000, and the Minister advised that she would consider matters arising from this for Report Stage. However, this section addresses the context of directors of semi-State companies, civil servants and so on, but did not deal with Members. If, for example, a complaint is made by a Member against another Member, if it gets through the initial screening process, if the committee decides following investigation that it is a vexatious or frivolous complaint and if some costs are incurred, can an award of costs be made at that stage against the Member who made the complaint?

If a complaint is made for mischievous reasons and is found not to have any basis, what is the position of the person against whom the complaint was made with regard to redress? Given the lives of politicians, when the complaint is made the damage is done and is hard to undo.

We have dealt with this before.

I am again raising it in this context. I wish to know how it applies to the individual who might have been wronged.

Deputy Wallace wishes to discuss the same point. We discussed this thoroughly in an earlier section.

When a complaint is made, is it immediately made public or is there an initial investigation? It could be decided half way through the investigation that it is vexatious. Surely there is a mechanism whereby somebody decides when a complaint should be made public. There is not much point in deciding half way through the investigation that the complaint has no basis when the damage has been done. Is there a mechanism to check a complaint in advance of proceeding to make it public to protect the interests of the Member concerned?

There is a screening mechanism for complaints from members of the public which will throw out complaints that may be frivolous or vexatious. A complaint made by a Member does not go through the clerks but goes straight to the committee. This section covers situations where the committee decides that the complaint by the Member was frivolous or vexatious.

Deputy McCreevy has pointed out, correctly, that there is a difference in the treatment of complaints from members of the public which are frivolous or vexatious and we propose to deal with that difference. It was an oversight in drafting this complex Bill.