Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I remind members to ensure their mobile phones are switched off. This is important as it causes serious problems for broadcasting, editorial and sound staff.

No. 6 is pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft general scheme of a public sector standards Bill. This is our second meeting on this. I welcome Dr. Elaine Byrne, a governance consultant with the European Commission in Ireland, and the following representatives from the Standards in Public Office Commission: Mr. Justice Daniel O'Keeffe, chairman, Mr. Peter Tyndall, and Mr. Jim O'Keeffe. The format will be that the witnesses will make opening remarks in the order I have introduced them and this will be followed by a question and answer session.

I advise witnesses that, by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against any person or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Members are reminded of the long-standing ruling of the Chair to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I invite Dr. Byrne to make her opening remarks.

Dr. Elaine Byrne:

I am grateful for the opportunity to give my views on the Bill. How Bills such as this are framed is important. People often regard them as something that is negative or a punishment for those in public life instead of framing them in a way that protects the majority of those in public life from perceptions of unorthodox behaviour.

I regard this in the same way as, and see parallels with, what happened recently in cycling and athletics, whereby once an allegation has been made and there are not adequate protection measures, everybody is tarred with the same brush. In this sense, the general scheme of the Bill is very welcome and should be framed in a way that reflects on public life more positively. The general scheme is 76 pages long. For people contemplating entering public life, it can be very daunting to see all the requirements with which they must comply.

My particular focus is on the register of liabilities. Under head 5(3)(c) there is a reference to declarable interests which specifies that any liability in excess of €50,000 should be on a register of liabilities. I would ask why the figure is so high compared to that which applies in other jurisdictions, where the limit is much lower. I would ask why the register is private rather than public and why private homes are not included on it. In Ireland, members of the National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA, who are assigned to work for the National Asset Management Agency, NAMA, are already legislatively required to be on the register of liabilities. They are the only public figures who are on a register of liabilities. Since 2009, the Standards in Public Office Commission, SIPO, has recommended that a public representative "who has significant liabilities to, for example, a financial institution, could be materially influenced in the course of performing their duties where such duties involve dealing with that financial institution".

Often, the focus, when we are discussing registers is on the assets public representatives have and not on their liabilities. People are as influenced, in terms of conflicts of interest, by their liabilities as by their assets. According to the current register of interests, at least a quarter of our Deputies and Ministers have significant holdings in holiday homes, rental properties or second properties. In the lifetime of this Government, in a reflection of the general population, a Minister and a Minister of State have experienced significant financial difficulties. This has raised questions about why the public did not know the extent of those Members’ liabilities. Australia, Finland, New Zealand, Poland, Spain and Canada require politicians to publicly disclose any debts they may have, including outstanding loans, debts or mortgages. The international best practice note provided for the documentation relating to the general scheme of the Bill does not focus on the models in Finland, Poland or Spain. In Canada, all assets and liabilities of a public figure and his or her family members which exceed $10,000 must be disclosed. In Ireland, the proposed limit is €50,000. In Canada, the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner maintains a public register of publicly declarable information. A couple of years ago, I looked up the details of the former Minister for Finance, James Flaherty, who disclosed that he had two mortgages, that he had a line of credit and that he was a guarantor in a mortgage with a particular bank. His register of interests also outlined his spouse’s liabilities, assets, investments, activities and sources of income. Under the system proposed for Ireland, this information would not be reported. Where a register of liabilities is to be introduced, I urge the committee to examine the Canadian experience, which has a searchable website database that is very comprehensible and all in one place. It is international best practice. Even interns in departments and public offices are included in the database.

The pretext of much of the general scheme is focused on the 22 tribunal recommendations. Much of the debate on ethics is no longer necessarily relevant, particularly in view of the fact that it is grounded in the context of what happened in political life in the 1980s or 1990s. Matters have moved on. Instead of looking to what happened in Ireland in the past, perhaps this and other proposed ethics legislation should be used to examine international best practice and what has happened in other jurisdictions. In the context of additional responsibilities relating to an office of the commissioner, perhaps we should examine how Ireland’s oversight agencies operate. In the UK after the economic crisis, there was an independent review - the De Grazia review - and audit of the capacity and operational ability of oversight agencies to prosecute ethical offences. Instead, we are examining ethical transgressions in the focus of one agency rather than considering where those ethical transgressions have occurred and where other agencies have similar functions which are duplicated or there is a lack of information sharing. Instead of considering one agency, perhaps there needs to be an audit and a review of oversight agencies in Ireland in general. In 2010, the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement gave a White Paper to the Department of Justice and Equality listing the problems it had doing its business. Instead of looking to the past, perhaps we need to examine an overview of how audit or oversight agencies need to focus in general.

There is no debate in Ireland on compensation for whistleblowers. The response in the US to the financial collapse and ethical misdemeanours was the Dodd-Frank Act, which established the US Office of the Whistleblower. The Securities and Exchange Commission is authorised by the US Congress to provide monetary awards ranging from 10% to 30% of the money collected in cases in which high-quality, original whistleblower information leads to a commission enforcement action of more than $1 million in sanctions. This week, Greg Medcraft, chairman of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, has also proposed compensation to whistleblowers who risk their careers to expose company conduct. While paying whistleblowers may be a very difficult concept for many people to get their head around, we must ask what savings the State would have made had an Anglo Irish Bank employee blown the whistle about lending practices and auditing standards in the bank in the mid 2000s or if the Anglo tapes had come to light before the bank guarantee.

The general scheme is very welcome. SIPO and other organisations have been calling for it for years. The debate has moved on and we also need to focus on other areas of ethics. In many ways Ireland, whether through lobbying or whistleblowing, has some of the best governance architecture in the world, while in other areas we fall down, particularly regarding how it is prosecuted. SIPO and the Ombudsman will discuss it further.

Mr. Justice Daniel O'Keeffe:

On behalf of SIPO, we welcome the opportunity to make a formal submission setting out the commission's views on the draft general scheme of a public sector standards Bill. We also welcome the opportunity to address members, answer any questions they may have and contribute to the debate on the matter. The commission welcomes the publication of the draft general scheme.

The proposals represent a significant step on the road to realisation of a major recommendation first made by the commission in its annual report for 2009 for a single comprehensive Act based on best practice for dealing with conflicts of interests, which would consolidate the provisions of the ethics Acts with other statutory and administrative ethics frameworks, such as the ethical framework for the local government service and the code of practice for the governance of State bodies.

Since the passage of the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995, the commission and its predecessor, the Public Offices Commission, have overseen the implementation of the ethics legislation. In that time, it has made numerous recommendations for improvement of the ethical framework, many of which are reflected in the draft general scheme. Not least of these recommendations is the requirement that the legislation be consolidated and that a clear set of principles be established which apply to all in public life.

The commission considers that a strong ethical framework should be aspirational in nature. The structure underpinning the statute should have a strong promotional role and not just be engaged in detecting non-compliance. The statutory framework should codify public service values and principles, use these as the basis of a statutory code of conduct and provide clear guidance and training. These provisions should form the centre of the framework. Such values and principles would include the requirements that public officials act solely in the public interest, act fairly and impartially, are accountable for their actions and show leadership by acting in accordance with the highest standards and promoting these standards to other public officials by their conduct.

The draft general scheme gives centre stage to conflicts of interest, which formed the basis of the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995. However, other aspects of behaviour such as the requirements on public officials to have respect for equality of opportunity, to perform their functions openly and transparently to the greatest extent possible and to avoid the misuse of public resources also need to feature, in the context of the fundamental obligation of public officials to act ethically in the public interest, which must be emphasised to be of the highest priority.

The commission therefore considers that the general scheme should be reordered to emphasise the high standards of conduct and integrity which are expected of public officials, along with the provisions regarding the codes of conduct and that other provisions setting out specific obligations should follow. These include the obligations for disclosure of interests, tax clearance, use of confidential information and dealings with land.

The commission has provided a document setting out in detail its observations on the draft general scheme and has made recommendations for improvements. The commission has also provided that document to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. In particular, the commission considers that the structure and procedure proposed for investigation of contraventions is over elaborate and unnecessary. It considers that, given its experience of dealing with complaints under the ethics Acts, the investigative function should be provided within a single organisation without the need for an external structure.

The standards commission notes the proposal in the draft general scheme for its replacement by a single officeholder, the public sector standards commissioner. It considers that there is some merit in the proposal. However, it also considers that there has been merit in the existing approach. The wide range of experience brought to the commission by its current and former members, namely, former High Court judges, the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Ombudsman, the Clerks of the Dáil and Seanad and former Oireachtas Members and Ministers, has been of great benefit to the commission in performing its functions under the ethics Acts. The commission is of the opinion that careful consideration should be given to this proposal. The current structure of the commission and the implementation of its statutory powers have indicated the established ability for the commission to perform its functions in an open and transparent manner covering a wide range of issues. Appropriate legislative amendments, where necessary, could be made while substantially retaining the current structure of the commission.

Before concluding, I wish to put on the record some comments of Mr. Justice Hedigan, a High Court judge, on the composition of the membership of the commission. In reference to determining a particular interest he stated:

...it is hard to imagine a body more qualified than the Commission. It is an ideal composition of experience, both legal, popular and political. It is likely to be a very rare case where this court in judicial review would find its conclusions irrational or unreasonable.

I ask the members of the committee to bear these comments in mind. We would be happy to answer any questions which the members may have and to contribute to the development of the proposals. With your agreement, my colleague and namesake will continue.

Mr. Jim O'Keeffe:

I am glad to make a few comments based on my experience of almost 35 years in the House and the past few years as the agreed all-party representative on the commission. What do I think of the Bill? A new Bill is absolutely necessary. We could not let the events of recent years and the tribunals go by without at least considering one. However, when one looks at the bits and pieces that are gathered together under the remit of SIPO, at times even as a former lawyer and former politician, I find it difficult to wend my way through it. It makes considerable sense from everybody's point of view to have one new comprehensive Bill. This has been a request from the commission going back over quite a number of years. The debate has started with the publication of the document for a new and reformed legal framework from the Department, which is a very positive step.

What do I think of the outline of what is suggested at the moment? In the main, it has adopted many of the recommendations from SIPO over the years. Members' job now, when the Bill is finally carried after proper debate and consultation, is to ensure it is fit for the purposes proposed. Mr. Justice Daniel O'Keeffe has outlined in broad terms the current view of the commission and, of course, I support that. However, I would suggest a few additions.

It is essential that all those dealing with it, in particular Members of the Houses, have a full appreciation of the Bill's contents and its impacts on those affected by it. This includes Members of the Dáil and Seanad, local authority members, members of the public service and employees at local government level. It really reaches into every aspect of public life in Ireland, as it should. It is important that the Members of the Oireachtas who will be dealing with the Bill are fully aware of that.

Second, it is important that there be the widest possible consultation with those who will be affected, so they will have an appreciation of what is happening. Also, it will be possible to take up recommendations for improvement on the terms of the proposals.

My third suggestion is that the Oireachtas, and particularly members of this committee, should examine the structures adopted in other countries. We are not alone in having problems relating to ethics and standards. It is important to examine other institutional structures and arrangements, such as with regard to asset disclosures and the question of whether liabilities should be recorded. Then one must go beyond that to liabilities of spouses or connected persons, whether they should be published and in what circumstances.

There are myriad issues, some of which have been mentioned in a wider context by Dr. Elaine Byrne. I strongly suggest that the committee carefully examine the type of approach that has been adopted in other jurisdictions, not least our nearest neighbours in the UK, with a view to trying to hone what I will not say will be perfect legislation but the best possible outcome from the point of view of getting satisfaction on the part of the public with the activities of elected people and all public officials, as well as bringing people on board along the way.

They are the main approaches I suggest. Mr. Justice Daniel O'Keeffe commented on the role of SIPO. I have had the privilege for the last couple of years of being the Oireachtas member on the commission, which includes a retired High Court judge appointed by the President as well as a retired Member of the Oireachtas, thankfully approved on an all-party basis. I was very glad that nobody threw in a black ball to knock me out. It also includes the expertise of the Ombudsman, who brings much talent and experience to the commission, as well as the Comptroller and Auditor General. Many of the committee members deal with him in the Committee of Public Accounts. He provides a huge range of experience from there. In addition, there are the practical and sensible contributions from the Clerk of the Dáil and the Clerk of the Seanad. I have been very impressed by the care and attention given to decisions arising from the preparation of work by our officials, who have well developed experience in that regard. With that broad range of expertise, I am proud to be associated with the outcomes from the commission.

That is my view on the current situation. There is a proposal to replace the commission with a single commissioner. There is a similar proposal relating to the electoral Bill functions of SIPO, which is to transfer them to a new electoral commission. I believe there is an absolute case for that. If there is an electoral reform commissioner under the new Bill, it is sensible that any of the functions relating to the electoral Acts should be concentrated in the electoral commission. That is a plus. When I first saw the proposal my reaction was that it would free up SIPO to focus more time and attention on the ethical and moral issues.

I am not sure whether the proposal to establish a single commissioner in lieu of the broad-based commission I mentioned is a good one. I am not aware of any institutional arrangement in any part of the world identical to that arrangement, but there are some similarities in the institutions in Ontario in Canada and at one time I came across a body in Australia called ICAC, the Independent Commission Against Corruption. It appeared to have a similar role. I visited it when I was there and my recollection is that it appeared to have a huge staff in a huge building. There were approximately 120 staff at that stage. It also had a huge budget running to many millions. I was not particularly impressed with its outcome at the time but that was only a single instance and it was a number of years ago.

The committee will have to deal with the issue and that is the challenge. If the committee decides that a single commissioner will do a better job, that is the committee's job and I will fully accept that decision. All I ask is that the members look at it carefully. Bear in mind that the new commissioner or commission, as proposed in the scheme in this instance, will have substantially increased powers of sanction. The proposal is that the commissioner would have the power of receiving complaints, referring complaints for further investigation, dismissing complaints as frivolous or vexatious, providing advice or guidance, dismissing a matter himself or herself and proceeding to a prosecution without reference to anybody. Furthermore, at the conclusion of an investigation, the commissioner will adjudicate on it solely and has certain powers, including sanctions, after that. The commissioner can prosecute summarily or can refer matters to the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, and so forth. There is a range of functions and it is a matter for the committee to decide whether it wants those functions to be exercised by a single commissioner.

Let the debate begin. I advise the committee to take its time with it and I wish the members the best of luck in arriving at the best conclusions.

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to acknowledge Mr. Paddy Walsh and Mr. Brian McKevitt, who are present today as well.

Mr. Peter Tyndall:

The arguments that have been made in favour of having a single, consolidated Bill are, broadly speaking, unanswerable. The current arrangements are difficult to understand, it is impossible for people who have to deal with them to fully understand what their responsibilities are and they are very difficult to implement in practice. The number of successful outcomes achieved by the current arrangements in holding people to account appear to fall far short of the perceived difficulties that the commission should properly be tackling. The notion that the current arrangements are fit for purpose is wrong. They are not. The need for change is compelling.

The committee members know that the vast majority of public representatives behave in an entirely ethical fashion, and that the small number of people who do not do so can attract most of the public attention. As Dr. Byrne was implying, that can tend to suggest that all of those engaged in public life are self-seeking and simply looking to benefit their own interests rather than seeking the best for the people of the State. That is not true and committee members know that, so they need a regime that, above all, sets out the aspirations we as a nation have for ethical behaviour and what we see it resembling. I suggest something along the lines of the Nolan principles, setting out for Ireland what we believe people should aspire to - selflessness, leadership, complete propriety and acting in a way that benefits the people of the State rather than those individuals.

The arrangements here go a long way towards that, but fall a little short. When one speaks to people internationally, one finds that Ireland is regarded as having the leading piece of legislation on lobbying in the world at the moment. On the ethics front, however, I do not think this quite reaches the same standard. Perhaps that is because, as Dr. Byrne was implying, it is driven in response to events rather than by consideration of best practice elsewhere and how we could incorporate that into Ireland.

It seems to me that some of the elements of the scheme are close to the cutting edge. Other elements - there has been some mention particularly of the investigation arrangements - seem, as drafted, to be cumbersome and likely to be long drawn out and difficult in practice. I would favour something far more streamlined. Also, I do not share my colleagues' anxieties about the model of a single commission. When we discussed this at the commission, people's views were divided. One can look to models abroad, and many offices in countries outside Europe do use a commissioner. There are examples of commissioners dealing with it. We should be less obsessed with the structure and more concerned about what the content is and whether it is right.

I am a strong believer in a promotional role, offering clear guidance for people who are bound by codes to have a code of practice that is well set out and to have examples available. I am drawing partly on my experience from a previous job. When I was Ombudsman in Wales I was responsible for investigating complaints that members of local authorities had breached their code of conduct. As part of that, I spent a lot of time producing clear guidance, casebooks setting out examples of what had happened, and so on. However, much of the role was actually about training people in what it is to be a public representative and how best to perform that role, to avoid having the types of criticism that arise. Investigation should be at the margins; it is promotion that is really important, and having a good framework in place.

In looking at this, I hope that the committee will, as has been suggested by both of my colleagues, look to the best of international practice and see if we can come up with something that is a little more ambitious than this while building on what is obviously a step forward from the position. Maybe when it comes to the issues around investigation, we will have something that is both proportionate - something that does not deal with trivial matters and concerns itself only with the more serious matters - and also effective in the way that it can deliver outcomes.

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I very much welcome the representatives of the commission and thank them for their views and the overview. They have certainly given us a wide range of food for thought, but I do not see this scheme being advanced much in the remaining lifetime of this Parliament. It is important, however, and I am glad that the public debate has commenced. It will be a matter for the next government to deal with.

Some important matters have been touched upon. Dr. Byrne spoke about declarations of interests, but I thought everything beyond about €14,000 had to be reported.

Dr. Elaine Byrne:

Not in liabilities.

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

All right. I wanted to come to the liabilities. That is one of the glaring omissions of the present arrangement. I know a colleague who was pilloried somewhat over things he owned, but what was not known, although I knew it, was that he owed millions to financial institutions. That was not declared at all. Dr. Byrne is quite right: this thing is meaningless. It does not say what anybody owes. Sometimes - and it could happen to Members of the Oireachtas - they might owe a lot more than they own, so that is a matter that should be properly declared in the public interest. That is why I fully agree with Dr. Byrne's comment.

Of course, cognisance of international best practice has to be carefully taken account of, as well as oversight agencies and how we deal with whistleblowers. Everything that was said in regard to those matters is important. The general scheme of a Bill can be suitably built upon. Now that other Members of the Oireachtas are going to be involved, it is important, as has been said, that the widest possible consultation should take place.

The witnesses are all agreed that the Bill is necessary but, as has become obvious from what Mr. Tyndall and Mr. O'Keeffe have said, there are differences within the commission as to whether there will be a single commissioner. I would be pretty open about that. I might be slightly biased, but I would err towards the Member of the Oireachtas who represents us on the commission. I am glad he was not blackballed, as he put it. The debate on that can take place and all the different aspects, including the pros and cons, can be examined.

Given that such a glaring omission has been referred to, it interesting that this at least, as well as some other things, will be taken care of. I look forward to the ongoing debate. I am sure that if some of us are lucky enough to be back in the next Parliament we will be able to take care of it. I look forward to dealing with it.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to thank everybody who has presented their views here today. It is interesting, although I had not thought a lot about it coming into this meeting. It has occupied us all in a more general way in recent years with tribunals and all of that. Fair play to the witnesses for thinking about it and for briefing us. Hopefully it will prompt me, and maybe all of us here, to think about this in a bit more detail.

If I understood Dr. Byrne correctly, she is arguing for a whistleblower's office. Am I correct?

Dr. Elaine Byrne:

Yes.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think that is vital. SIPO sends us a lot of stuff to fill out every year. I have been late a couple of times, I have to confess, but it is right and proper that it is sent to us. That, in itself, is an improvement. However, I do not actually know what else SIPO really does. Is the proposal here that SIPO and the whistleblower's office would all become part of one big standards in public office unit? Does SIPO currently have any role in whistleblowing? Can whistleblowers go to SIPO at the moment?

Mr. Brian McKevitt:

Yes. The secretary of the commission has been designated a prescribed person under the Protected Disclosures Act to whom a whistleblower can go to make a protected disclosure in relation to matters that are the functions of the commission under the ethics or electoral legislation, or the regulation of lobbying.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. That is a useful piece of information for me, apart from anything else. That does not just relate to elected representatives, but also to people making disclosures or whistleblowing in relation to public officials generally. Is that correct?

Mr. Brian McKevitt:

Absolutely, yes. The commission has a role on what we might broadly call unethical conduct within what is called a specified act under the Standards in Public Office Act, which applies essentially to all public servants, employees of public bodies and members of State boards, as well as office holders within the meaning of the Ethics Acts, but not TDs or Senators as non-office-holders - those are a matter for the Committee on Members' Interests. However, all of those could be the subject of a protected disclosure by an employee.

Dr. Elaine Byrne:

If I may add, the Deputy's honesty in not knowing what the Standards in Public Office Commission does, even though he interacts with them every year, is replicated within the general public. I think that is the problem with all of the ethics framework that we have. It is a bit like Kissinger's phase, "Who do I call if I want to speak to Europe?".

To whom do I go if I have a problem about ethics in Ireland? It might be one of the reasons whistleblowers have been going to Deputies. They might not know where to go. If one has difficulties, does one go to the Ombudsman, the standards commission or the local government ethics registrar? Most probably do not even know the latter exists.

One of the aims of the proposed Bill is to consolidate and streamline some of these measures. I have been arguing that, in Canada, for example, one goes to the ethics commissioner's website, where one will see quickly all of the declarations made by politicians and those in public office in one place. In Ireland, one can find some of their equivalent on the Oireachtas website, on the standards commission website and, possibly, on some of the local government websites, and it creates a difficulty for the public. It is also unfair to politics in Ireland generally, because in lots of ways political life has responded, but the public does not always see that because it is almost as though it is hidden away. That is one of the recommendations.

To return to what was stated about the office of the whistleblower, I do not know whether it should be located within the standards commission or elsewhere. I was arguing, along with the Ombudsman, that often our focus on ethics in public life is based on an argument in response to events that happened in the 1980s and 1990s, and instead of looking back to former recommendations, perhaps we should be looking internationally at what is being done in other jurisdictions. One of the measures that is being actively discussed as a response to the financial crisis and ethics in public life is the Office of the Whistleblower in the United States. In Australia, they are holding parliamentary hearings this week about setting up a similar initiative, and there has also been some discussion in the United Kingdom.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I must think my way through it, but we definitely need a whistleblowers' office. The question before us then is whether that should be integrated. As Mr. Tyndall stated, the need for streamlining of the legislative role is unquestionable. We are probably all on the same page there, but then, as well as having the best possible legislation, and streamlined so that it is all in one place, the question is, what sort of agency or agencies should we have? Those seem to be the parameters of the discussion. Dr. Byrne states that at present it is quite fragmented, and I would agree. People do not know where to go. Frankly, I do not know where to go some of the time. Is it proposed in the general scheme, is anybody proposing it, and how does this overlap with the Ombudsman's office?

Mr. Peter Tyndall:

Frankly, it does not, but it does in other jurisdictions. In Northern Ireland, there is legislation whereby the Northern Ireland Ombudsman deals with ethical issues within local government so that issues around councillors who may fail to declare interests or are otherwise in breach of the code of conduct are investigated by the Ombudsman's office there. In particular, the investigative arrangements as specified in that legislation are rather less complex than those specified here.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is Mr. Tyndall in favour - maybe he is not allowed to say - of integrating all of these offices into a single one?

Mr. Peter Tyndall:

I was not proposing that. What is being proposed is that the legislation be combined. I take some of the points, including the possibility of an online register similar to the lobbying register where all public officials would declare their interests. I am in favour of those developments. My particular point was that the best international practice in countries such as Canada is as often driven by a commissioner model as by a commission model. There are good examples of both, and we need to decide which best fits us.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is Mr. Tyndall venturing any particular opinion on that?

Mr. Peter Tyndall:

No. There is an argument to be had. I was merely trying to bring some balance into it.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I accept that. I tend to lean towards a commission. Maybe none of the witnesses are allowed to say because they are all being very balanced and neutral, even those who are veering one way or slightly veering the other. I can see the advantages of the commission only because, when one is dealing with a fairly broad range of areas, including quite controversial issues, it is good to have a bit of balance; a few heads are better than one. On first impressions, I think I would prefer that. However, I like the idea that the offices that deal with public complaints, concerns, whistleblowing, etc., would all be one body. Is it the logical follow-on of the streamlining of the fragmented legislation, or rules and regulations, into one piece of legislation that one would also try to integrate the different agencies that are points of engagement for the public on these matters into something bigger and more visible that becomes a well known force to which the public can go, although it might well have different sections that deal with different aspects of all this? On the first observation, that seems like quite a good idea.

Mr. Peter Tyndall:

It is worth saying that the staff of SIPO, the secretariat, are employees of the Office of the Ombudsman. The back office is streamlined. There is not a separate administration. Colleagues here are part of the staff of my office, although they work to the commission rather than to me when they are supporting it. The same is true of the Referendum Commission, when it sits, the Constituency Commission, etc. The back-room streamlining has existed.

As for the profile of having a single point of contact, there is more that could be done. I have some ideas about how that might be done. There is a point in saying that one needs to raise the profile.

Coming separately to the whistleblower issue, the way the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 works means there are many persons to whom whistleblowers can go. They can go to members within the Garda if they want to whistleblow about the Garda, they can go to staff within the HSE if they want to whistleblow about the HSE, etc. That means that the person he or she goes to knows something about the issues he or she is dealing with, but the problem with it is that it does not have the kind of profile that a single whistleblower agency would have. Also, sometimes whistleblowers are a little concerned that it does not have the independence from the body that would give the whistleblower the security of knowing, in bringing something to public attention, that he or she will not be pilloried or discriminated against, for instance, in his or her career. Although that is not part of what is proposed here - it is separate - I have given no thought prior to today as to whether the two would sit comfortably together. It certainly is something that the committee could usefully explore. Giving it that profile might make it a lot easier for whistleblowers to come forward.

Mr. Jim O'Keeffe:

I will add the following by way of support. This committee would have a useful function in examining and looking at best practice in other countries. The issue raised by Deputy Boyd Barrett is not one that we have looked at in detail, but it certainly raises aspects as to whether we can improve what is there and whether it would have a role in the context of the proposed Bill. That is a useful area that might lead to amendments.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Dr. Byrne stated that Canada was a good model.

Dr. Elaine Byrne:

I referred to the ethics commissioner in Canada and the Office of the Whistleblower in the United States, which was introduced under the Dodd-Frank Act. My colleagues here have correctly identified that there are perhaps difficulties with fragmentation in terms of who whistleblowers may contact.

I was focused on something more controversial, namely, that whistleblowers would be paid for giving the information. In America, they get a percentage of the fines that are levied on financial institutions for their information.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Market-based whistleblowing.

Dr. Elaine Byrne:

It has worked in America because, as a consequence of bringing forward information, whistleblowers get between 10% and 20% of the overall fine and have been paid approximately $15 million in the past four or five years. This gives an idea of the amount of money that has been levied on financial institutions.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I see the point but alarm bells are ringing a little bit. It is not because of ideology but a genuine concern that there will be a financial incentive to make allegations that have no substance. How does one guard against that?

Dr. Elaine Byrne:

They only get a percentage of the fines that have been levied when the allegations have been proven in a court case. In Australia, the authorities are looking at similar initiatives, as are those in the UK following the recent Barclays scandal. This is where the international debate on ethics stands but we are not talking about these matters in Ireland because our discussions on ethics tend to respond to what has happened in the past rather than to focus on the present. There may or may not be merit in having an office of the whistleblower - it could be located within the Standards in Public Office Commission or the Office of the Ombudsman - but these issues are not actually being discussed at all.

The proposed legislation is very welcome because it will streamline a lot of things but some of the general issues around ethics are just not being discussed at all.

Mr. Jim O'Keeffe:

I am very strongly of the view that we should look at best practice abroad but one should sift what one finds. I am not sure that the US is a shining beacon of ethics but others may have a different view. The responsibility for regulating ethical conduct is divided among a number of organisations at federal and state level. The US Office of Government Ethics does have a lot of the functions of SIPO but cannot investigate complaints. Australia was mentioned. My experience with regard to Australia is out of date, having been gained years ago. However, I visited the offices of the Independent Commission Against Corruption in New South Wales and I was not that impressed. There is no central agency and there is a different body in Queensland.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can Mr. O'Keeffe elaborate on why he was not that impressed?

Mr. Jim O'Keeffe:

I thought there was a huge superstructure, a lot of buildings and a large number of staff - my recollection is that there were 120 people working there as opposed to the handful in SIPO. The budget was some 20 times that allocated to SIPO - perhaps some $15 million. I asked what work they did and how successful it was but they appeared to be chasing tuppenny-ha'penny issues at great expense rather than dealing with the broader picture. I emphasise that this was many years ago. I have not seen the office in Queensland but I understand it is somewhat similar to SIPO, with a commissioner who has an advisory role and provides guidance. There are different mixes in different places and by looking at other countries one can make a useful contribution to the development of this legislation.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry I was not present to hear the initial contribution but I was attending another meeting. I presume the legislation in the US in respect of whistleblowers would penalise vexatious or malicious endeavours, just as it does here. If not, it would be a recipe for bounty hunting. The advice to look to international best practice is very good and we should follow it. In many instances, whistleblowers turned to Members of the Oireachtas because they felt there was nowhere else to go because the culture within which they operated and worked was hostile to the idea of anybody coming forward to say anything that jarred with the status quo.

I want to sound out witnesses on a couple of interrelated issues with which the proposed legislation purports to deal. What about conflicts of interest? When people think about ethics legislation, public officials and politicians, at the forefront of their minds are brown envelopes, kickbacks and crude, nudge-nudge, wink-wink transactions for favours. As a result of the fact that we do not live in Australia or the United States of America but in Ireland, a very small landmass with a small population, we face other ethical issues which are more important for us and more difficult to pin down and legislate around. The issue of connectedness is important and one could not throw a stone from here to the wall without finding someone who is related to or went to school with someone else. That is even more acute in specific, sectoral circles of business, the law and the professions.

It is important that we get the legislation on insider information right because the great dilemma for the general public - and, therefore, for the system - is that there is a sense that there are insiders and outsiders. There are people in the know who move in the same circles, rub shoulders with each other and are connected with each other and there is a feeling that the corruptness of the system is almost casual. It is not necessarily dramatic, taking place in smoke-filled rooms or at meetings in quiet dark corners. Rather, it is almost a function of our being a small society. How do the witnesses think the current draft legislation addresses this and seeks to tackle such issues?

Where is the line drawn between a declaration of interests and an individual's privacy? The current draft envisages the ability of the House to suspend an elected Member for a period of 12 months for a breach of the legislation.

Will the witnesses address that question in terms of the fact that people are elected by popular vote to become Members of the Oireachtas? They have a mandate. Issues such as privacy and the democratic mandate are obvious tensions in the legislative framework.

Dr. Elaine Byrne:

I will take the argument of Ireland being a small country. I made a presentation to the banking inquiry. One of my key recommendations was that Ireland stop using the small country bogeyman argument as a way of explaining the culture in Ireland. There is no measure in any academic or international institute of governance which shows that being a small country makes a country better or worse in terms of corruption. I will give one brief example. Here are the top five countries in the world that are least corrupt according to the Transparency International corruption perception index which has parallels with the World Bank indices. Denmark is the least corrupt country in the world. It has a population of 5.5 million. New Zealand is also one of the least corrupt countries in the world, and its population of 4.2 million is lower than Ireland's. Sweden has a population of 9.2 million, Singapore has a population of 4.8 million, Finland has a population of 5.3 million. All of these countries have populations that are about the same or less than Ireland's; all are small countries and are least corrupt in the world. The corollary of that argument is that countries with large populations therefore are culturally not as corrupt. I will now list countries that are considered more corrupt or have problems with the governance mechanism and rank lower than Ireland in terms of their governance capability. The United Kingdom has a population of 62 million, Belgium has a population of 10 million, Italy has a population of 60 million, Poland has a population of 38 million, and all of these countries are regarded as more corrupt or have more difficulties with their governance than Ireland.

I feel very angry about this. As I have written a book on the history of corruption in Ireland, we use the excuse of Ireland being a small country to excuse our behaviour. It has nothing to do with the population size of a country, because if one looks at some of the least corrupt countries in the world one will see they have very low populations and are smaller societies than Ireland. The sooner psychologically we get rid of that argument, perhaps the quicker we can move on.

I will leave it to my colleagues-----

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to put a question to Dr. Byrne. I do not wish to create the impression that I am offering size as an excuse.

Dr. Elaine Byrne:

No, the Deputy is not putting this forward as an excuse. I am not projecting this comment towards her, but it is an excuse that many fall back on as a way of trying to explain things.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The issue of connectedness is a problem in the Irish system. Judge Alan Mahon recognised it, the dogs on the street know it, the old school tie, where one lives and with whom one associates, the issue of conflicts of interest - not least in recent controversies - is writ large, and there is the use of insider information, which term I use softly not necessarily in its commercial sense. How do those countries with smaller systems offset these? How do they regulate or do they need to, or is this characteristic deeply embedded in our culture?

Dr. Elaine Byrne:

It probably has to do with the ethics regime, leadership and proper enforcement within countries. Ireland in many respects has some of the best ethical and governance infrastructure in the world. It leads on issues such as lobbying, whistleblowing and political funding. America or the United Kingdom would give their right arm to have limits on political donations to the extent that we do. I think where we fall down, which is the point made by Deputy McDonald, is in the sense of connectedness and that there are no consequences for impropriety. Perhaps in those countries that I have listed where wrongdoing occurs, there are consequences as in people are prosecuted or there are meaningful consequences whereas in Ireland after so many tribunals, inquiries and so forth, it seems there are no consequences. I have had the experience of being interviewed by the Garda Síochána following a complaint made by a Deputy, who was at the centre of a tribunal of inquiry and I found it a very strange experience that the journalist who was writing about ethics and not the person who has been found guilty by various tribunals of ethical breaches was being investigated. With that kind of culture, it goes to the sense that we have problems with ethics. Our infrastructure and our legislation is very good.

Mr. Peter Tyndall:

There is no single, straightforward and easy answer to that question because what the Deputy is asking is how one changes the culture of public life in Ireland. One cannot change it with any single measure or in any single way. It has changed substantially anyway and will continue to change. I think the mention of leadership is fundamental to this. However look at the significant cultural change in our time, casual sexism in the workplace was normal, women had to retire if they married for instance. There were a series of things that were culturally very deeply embedded in Irish society yet they have gone. It is possible to change and we can be optimistic about bringing about change.

In the context of what an ethics regime can do to bring about that change, the first question one must ask is whether, if the things one is describing are interests, and they are interests, they are being captured by the ethics register? Dr. Byrne drew attention earlier, perhaps before Deputy McDonald was here, to the issue of liability, which was picked up by a Senator and that liability can be as much of a determinant of somebody's behaviour as actually having an interest in a positive sense. One of the other things one would look at is people trying to do favours for other people, but often as a consequence of longstanding disagreement people have been known to use their position to damage somebody's interests. So what one has to ensure is that one has a very open and transparent register. I think the Bill goes some way to giving us that but the register must be comprehensive so that all of the things that have been described are actually interests that have to be registered. One cannot describe connectedness in the Bill as one would describe it in a marriage act by the degree of relationship - second cousin twice removed does not come into it - but if somebody enjoys a close friendship or a business partnership with a Member, clearly one could be seen if one acted in a way that favoured them as not having been disinterested. One has to capture that. I think it is a difficult job but that is where one can look elsewhere. Other people have grappled with these problems and have come forward with solutions which are different from ours. I am conscious that the level of gifts that one has to declare and return in Ireland seems significantly more valuable than is the case elsewhere. One example is that one can accept from friends within Ireland, a service at a reduced price, without that being in breach of ethics legislation. Yet that goes to the heart of what the Deputy was describing. I think one needs to look at this in two ways, one of which should be "Is the framework right?" I think having an online register that anybody can look at where everybody has to register is one thing, but the other is the actual set of interests, the correct set of interests both positive and negative interests.

The other point raised was privacy. Dealing with privacy is a very tricky issue and the constitutional position in Ireland makes it probably more complex. It seems that for those of us who operate in the public domain that in stepping into that domain, whether it is an office such as the one I hold or an elected office, one has to be prepared to forgo some of that privacy in order to deal with the perceptions of possible influence.

It is a difficult one but one with which I think people with grapple. Nonetheless, if one tries to hide under a cloak of privacy things that people would regard as corrupt eventually public life will be brought into disrepute, which then becomes a problem.

In terms of sanctions, the particular point made by the Deputy deserves a lot of thought. If one denies people their elected representative that causes a genuine problem because those constituents would then be disadvantaged as compared to individuals in other constituencies, although it still may be right to have that level of sanction available. That question that must then be asked - and this is a question for Members rather than us - is whether a high level of sanction is required for very extreme breaches.

Dr. Elaine Byrne:

It is proposed in the corruption Bill that will shortly be brought before Cabinet that if a Deputy or Senator has been found guilty of corruption he or she will be immediately disbarred from the Dáil or Seanad and barred from running again for ten years. That proposal is being closely examined in a constitutional context. I understand that ways of resolving this have been identified. The point made is one that is being discussed within the Department of Justice and Equality. I understand that the Bill will be brought before Cabinet next week.

Mr. Jim O'Keeffe:

I have a couple of comments to make on the very serious issues raised by Deputy McDonald, which are outside of the scope of the Bill but need to be considered by this committee. I think the committee will have an important role to play in the development of these proposals.

On the declaration of interest and privacy, when I was a Member of the Dáil I had no problem disclosing what was mine. I would go so far as to declare off-stage income. When I was first elected I also practised as a lawyer and continued to do so until it was no longer possible. I would see no problem about that. The difficulty for me is in relation to spouses or other people who may be designated as connected persons. Is it fair that the family of an elected representative or a senior public official doing good service for the State in a different capacity would be exposed to this provision?

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We would have no friends at all. Everybody would be running away from us.

Mr. Jim O'Keeffe:

I understand that remark. It should be possible to provide that declarations be made but not made public except in special circumstances such as inquiries or court proceedings and so on. It is a difficult issue. While it would not be an issue for me personally it would certainly be an issue for the person involved in terms of his or her family and connected persons.

On the point regarding conflict of interests, I am of the view that the atmosphere and culture around what is acceptable has changed and improved a great deal since my time in office. Much of what was happening when I first entered politics is now considered abhorrent. I am not speaking in that regard about brown envelopes. Even though I lived through the tribunals and so on I had no experience of brown envelopes. The type of corruption about which Deputy McDonald has spoken was possibly far more relevant then. As to how we deal with it, I am not so sure. We must keep the current trend going and ensure enactment of decent legislation. Model codes of conduct and sectoral codes based on the model code, perhaps, statutorily based, might help, particularly in the context of the people likely to be affected. It must be emphasised that we are speaking not only about elected representatives but 300,000 plus public servants. These people must be made aware of what is happening and be willing to buy into it. There will also need to be adequate guidance and training at all levels. One will probably find that currently this is not happening. The Standards in Public Office, SIPO, commission will have a huge role to play into the future in terms of promotion, guidance and training.

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How are Members of Parliament elected in New Zealand?

Dr. Elaine Byrne:

I presume by popular vote.

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Dr. Byrne said earlier that we in Ireland are a little blasé about ethics. To some degree, people vote for their local representatives and while they will rail against what they perceive as unethical behaviour, given they were the ones on the inside track in terms the clientelism in which we are accused of participating day in and day out, any politician who decides to take the high moral ground in politics and work only in a policy and legislative role will be a very short time in Dáil Éireann. That is part of the cultural issue about which Dr. Byrne spoke.

Dr. Elaine Byrne:

How does the Chairman define "clientelism"?

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am asking if this is an issue. Is this to some degree contributing to the the casual-type attitude here towards ethics? As pointed out by Mr. Jim O'Keeffe the vast majority of people who enter public life do so purely on altruistic grounds. They do it because they want to serve the people they represent. To some degree the vast majority of people in this Parliament have no power whatsoever. The procurement officer of a large semi-State company or State organisation or senior planning officer of a local authority is far more susceptible to corrupt practices than most junior Ministers and certainly all non-office holders in Dáil Éireann yet the whole debate focuses around politicians. This appears to stem from the tribunals. We are discussing SIPO but most people do not know what its role is. Most people think its function is to investigate politicians in relation to corrupt payments. Most people do not know that there is a different system for county councillors. They do not know whether SIPO does or does not investigate corrupt practice by public servants in local authorities, the HSE, and so on. Despite the fact it was established 20 years ago the majority of people elected to the Houses and the general public still do not know what SIPO does. This means that unless we read about SIPO on the front page of the national media we do not pay much heed to it.

Dr. Elaine Byrne:

I do not subscribe to the perception that all politicians are corrupt. It is a disservice to believe that those who enter public life do so out of self interest. During my opening statement I said that I believe that the enactment of these type of protections serve to protect the vast majority of people in the sports or politics communities, from the misdemeanours of a minority. I concur with the comments made by the Ombudsman that the vast majority of public representatives in Ireland do not on a day to day basis commit ethical breaches. Perhaps the putting in place here of something like the Nolan principles introduced in the UK, in terms of aspirations as to what public life should subscribe to, would be a positive development.

I worked in the UN anti-corruption unit for almost a year. Something my then boss used to say goes to the heart of the point the Chairman is making, namely, the three Ps principle - print the legislation; put it up for everybody to see and pray to God that it works.

Over the past 20 years in Ireland, our response to ethical breaches by people in public life has been to bring in legislation, some of which is the best in the world. However, this must be complemented by other actions. Let me use the analogy of shoes. We have the best shoes in the world by way of comparison with ethical legislation. They are designed with beautiful leather and are carefully stitched by craftsmen. However, shoes are no good unless we tie our shoelaces. In Ireland, we often trip over the small things. We trip over our shoelaces and despite having a very good legislative framework, small things allow the perception exist that public figures are in public life for their own interest. That is not fair to the majority of people in public life.

These shoelaces are issues such as leadership, enforcement or issues regarding challenging ethical breaches when they occur. From personal experience over the past number of years, these further actions have not taken place. There has not been leadership. If a Taoiseach makes a decision to stand up for ethics, but rings a bell instead, this sends out a message to the people that ethics only apply to certain people. This is unfair to the majority of politicians and to the legislators who put this amazing legislation together, who govern it and wear this great pair of shoes, while we trip over and over again over our shoelaces because of small issues that allow this to happen. A by-election is taking place for the Seanad on Friday and a small issue such as this could be something as simple as appointing an individual to a board so that he fulfils the obligations required to become a Seanad candidate. Actions like this do an enormous disservice to public life in Ireland. This is not just about how we perceive clientelism, but about leadership and enforcement.

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Who does the SIPO Act cover?

Mr. Peter Tyndall:

It covers senior public officials. The committee is probably aware that in the past couple of weeks Mr. Justice O'Keeffe delivered on our behalf a verdict on a county manager which received extensive coverage. This had to do with an allegation of failure to declare an interest. We cover senior public officials and elected representatives.

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How far down the line does it go in terms of a local authority or government organisation?

Mr. Brian McKevitt:

It covers any public employee. Any employee of a public body that is recognised as a public body by the ethics Acts can be the subject of a complaint under the ethics Acts.

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do all such employees have to submit declarations?

Mr. Brian McKevitt:

No. The requirements regarding declarations of interest vary from public body to public body. I am not sure at what level officials within the local authorities must make declarations, whether it is below director of services or not. In other public bodies it varies enormously. I know, for example, that in the Revenue Commission, staff officers - a relatively low grade - who have a direct involvement in deciding on tax matters for individuals are covered. In other bodies, it might only concern people at principal officer level and above. A long and repeated set of regulations sets out the category of people covered. One of the advantages of this legislation is that it spells out the categories of people who will be obliged to make a declaration of interests. This includes category A, making public declarations for themselves, category B, making private declarations, and category C, for making a declaration when there is an actual conflict of interest. Everybody is covered one way or another. That is not the case currently.

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would I, as an elected Member of parliament end up in category A?

Mr. Brian McKevitt:

Yes, category A, despite the fact that individuals in the public sector, who are potentially more susceptible to unethical practice, would or could be in category B. The provisions in the draft provide that anybody at deputy secretary level and above is automatically covered in category A, but there is provision for the Minister to prescribe such other positions or grades as he considers fit. Perhaps over time, possibly following review of the legislation, it will be considered necessary to cover a lower level.

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Should the Standards in Public Office Commission not have a role in saying which categories of individuals should be covered? If people can be exposed to unethical behaviour anywhere within the public sector, not just in terms of elected representatives, should the commission not decide on categories or have a say in whether people are category A or B?

Mr. Brian McKevitt:

The only thing I can say about that is that this is done by legislation, both primary and secondary.

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Has the commission had an input in that?

Mr. Brian McKevitt:

In terms of the existing regulations, we have. If the committee looks back through our annual reports it will see we have repeatedly talked about individual public bodies that should be included and mentioned the delays in including public bodies after their establishment. We have looked for a more rational system of ensuring that people are within the system and that we do not have the gaps that have arisen over the past ten years.

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will just make a comment regarding whether we have a commission or a commissioner. One of the issues regarding a role such as this is that decisions very much impinge on a person's character. As a doctor, I find I have greater confidence in a medical council type set-up, which is a group of individuals passing judgment rather than an individual. In my experience of the Medical Council, it has provided more balanced judgments for both the lay and medical people involved. I would prefer a commission rather than a commissioner in situations like these. I know ombudsmen make decisions on financial matters and other issues and that people can refer those decisions to the courts, but there can be significant delay in getting the issue to the courts.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If we are aware of particular cases, can we bring them to the commission?

Mr. Peter Tyndall:

Best practice legislation would place a requirement on people in public life to report any instances where they believe somebody is in breach of ethics legislation.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Who do we actually take those cases to?

Mr. Peter Tyndall:

If members want to make a complaint on any of the issues around ethics, they can complain to the SIPOC. These complaints should be brought via the secretary, Mr. Paddy Walsh.

Mr. Paddy Walsh:

I was going to say earlier that I was disappointed the committee members knew so little about us and was going to offer to meet members or a group from the Oireachtas. We are doing outreach work currently in regard to the general election and are making ourselves available to talk about donations and expenditure during the election. However, we can expand that to talk about all of the functions of the commission. Whether members want to meet us individually or as a group or party, we can facilitate that.

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If the commission can submit information on its role to the secretariat of the committee, we can put it up on our website. Perhaps it could explain who is covered by the legislation, who can make representations to the commission and what issues it deals with.

Mr. Paddy Walsh:

We have all of that on our website, but we can send it to the committee.

Mr. Jim O'Keeffe:

On a personal note, as a member of the commission I do not regard myself as a "former member of Fine Gael". I regard myself as a member on behalf of the Oireachtas and am delighted when people from all parties refer issues to me as I feel I can point them in the right direction.

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On behalf of the joint committee, I thank Dr. Byrne, Mr. Dan O'Keeffe, Mr. Jim O'Keeffe and Mr. Tyndall for their participation in today's meeting. It is our intention to produce a report on the hearings relating to the draft heads of the Bill and we may then carry out further study on best international practice.

Unless there is any other business, we will adjourn.