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.