This section provides that statements will be retained for 15 years.

Why was 15 years chosen?

All groups covered by the Bill, excluding ordinary Members, can be subject to investigation by the commission after they have left office. For example the commission could look at a possible contravention by an employee of a semi-State body after he or she had left that job. The section ensures the records will exist for a long enough time to enable that to take place. It does not affect Members.

Is 15 years not too long?

Is the limit not less than that under the statute of limitations, only six years in some cases? Why was 15 years chosen? Does the time limit apply elsewhere?

There is no hang-up about 15 years; we wanted to put in a sufficiently long period to ensure if there was an investigation of, for example, a serious breach of public trust in a semi-State company, that could be investigated after the event and the records would not have been destroyed. It preserves them in the event of an investigation some years later.

Would it not make more sense to keep the period in line with tax law at six years as 15 years seems an inordinate length of time? People are obliged by the Revenue to have their books available for six years. If those records are gone after that period, an individual would not have been required to keep much information which the committee would look for — specifically the tax information, which would be the most relevant in this context.

Is it not sensible to make both periods six years? The individual might be put at a disadvantage if there is an investigation after 15 years and the Revenue records are not available, if only part of the information has been kept. It could cause serious difficulties in establishing anything.

I will look at this in the light of periods used elsewhere.