Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The amendment suggests increasing the maximum sentence for trading in influence. The offence targets not the decision maker but those persons who have access to power and wish to corruptly use or abuse this access.

Ireland has not had a specific offence of trading in influence on the Statute Book to date and the proposed offence is new here. In international fora, we have argued that the wider corruption offence contained in the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act is broad enough to include trading in influence. GRECO, the Council of Europe anti-corruption body, did not accept our view on this and has recommended that Ireland introduce an autonomous offence of trading in influence in line with Article 12 of the Council of Europe Criminal Law Convention on Corruption. While that convention has a mandatory requirement for such an offence, the UN Convention against Corruption has also advised state parties to consider adopting trading in influence as a criminal offence when committed intentionally.

If we were to consider corruption offences on a spectrum from what might be considered lower level, more petty corruption to grand corruption on the far end, trading in influence would more often than not be at the lower end of the scale. It has been referred to in textbooks as "bearing the stench of corruption". It is for this reason that I have set the penalties as provided for in the section, namely, on summary conviction to a class A fine, forfeiture of the gift, consideration or advantage, and a term of imprisonment not exceeding 12 months; and, on conviction on indictment, to an unlimited fine, forfeiture of the gift, consideration or advantage and a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years. A five-year maximum sentence is appropriate and proportionate.

As I stated, such an offence is usually at the lower end of the corruption scale. Also, the proposed maximum sentence is very much in line with our international partners and possibly higher than most. Italy has a maximum sentence of two years. Spain also has a maximum sentence of two years but this increases to four years for public officials. Norway, Belgium and Estonia have a maximum sentence of three years. Malta is in the process of increasing its maximum sentence to three years. New Zealand has a maximum sentence of seven years. The only state of which I am aware that has a maximum sentence of ten years for trading in influence is France and this sentence only applies to public officials engaged in trading in influence. Where a private individual is involved, the maximum sentence is five years. I am not sure we should adopt the French model.

Section 7 addresses corruption by officials and this form of corruption attracts a maximum sentence of ten years. I have a reasonably open mind on the matter and I ask that the select committee does not divide on the amendment. I acknowledge Deputy Ó Laoghaire's decision not to move his amendment and I will be happy to give the matter further consideration, albeit in the context of this offence being at the lower end of the scale.