Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I move:

That Dáil Éireann:recognises that corruption in public and commercial life represents a great threat to the democratic functioning of the State;

finds that culturally ingrained concepts of patronage, clientelism and favouritism have pervaded political institutions and have led to serious failures in corporate governance, particularly where inappropriate links between business and politics have been exploited;

concludes that such failings have eroded public confidence that politics and commerce operate to benefit the many over the few;

notes that Bunreacht na hÉireann places in the care of the Oireachtas a responsibility to ensure that the operation of free competition shall not be allowed to develop as to result in the concentration of the ownership or control of essential commodities in a few individuals to the common detriment; and that the Oireachtas has failed to adhere to this guidance in recent years;

recognises that the State has no effective means of preventing, investigating or prosecuting corruption or white-collar crime as responsible agencies are too disconnected, lack appropriate powers, or lack necessary resources;

further notes:

— that prosecutions arising from cases of proven corruption have been rare;

— the failure of the Government to adequately act on the findings of the Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments (Mahon Tribunal) nor the Tribunal of Inquiry into Payments to Politicians and Related Matters (Moriarty Tribunal);

— that there have been eight tribunals of inquiry in the past twenty years, and where they made findings of impropriety in public or commercial life, very few consequences, if any, have arisen; and

— that five commissions of investigation are currently in operation, and that in some cases, commissions have sought additional powers to ensure they can fulfil their terms of reference; and

recommends, in order to effectively address these matters, that the Government:

— establish a permanent, independent Anti-Corruption Agency to, initially, assume the functions of the Standards in Public Office Commission; the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement; the Registrar of Lobbyists and the Competition Authority, but not confined to these bodies;

— mandate the Anti-Corruption Agency to act as a Standing Commission of Investigation;

— confer the Anti-Corruption Agency with powers of:

— investigation;

— compellability and testimony-taking;

— court-authorised search and seizure, including access to bank records;

— prosecution at District and Circuit Court level only; and

— arrest;

— empower the Anti-Corruption Agency to initiate and conduct investigations and sectoral reviews of its own volition;

— consolidate and reform legislation tackling corruption, official malfeasance and white-collar crime, and place the Anti-Corruption Agency at the apex of the State’s legislative architecture countering corruption;

— confer the Anti-Corruption Agency with a monitoring and investigative role over public procurement activities, both ongoing and historic;

— mandate an advisory role, initially upon the Anti-Corruption Agency in relation to the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission; the Comptroller and Auditor General; the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces; the Garda Bureau of Fraud Investigation;

professional bodies and any future Electoral Commission, but not confined to these bodies;

— draw on the experience in other jurisdictions in establishing an Anti-Corruption Agency, in particular the Independent Broad-Based Anti-Corruption Commission (IBAC) of Victoria, Australia, the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) of the United Kingdom, and the Hong Kong Independent Commission Against Corruption;

— create a new joint Oireachtas oversight committee, to be called the Public Interest Committee, a majority of whom shall be Opposition members; and

— establish annual reporting by the Anti-Corruption Agency to both Houses of the Oireachtas, and ensure reports are debated in both Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann.”

I wonder whether it is really appreciated how upset people feel after the programme on RTE last night about corruption. They are upset because they do not believe there will be consequences. Their ambition for this country is bigger and better than what we saw last night. This applies across the spectrum, from people who are living on social welfare to wealthy people.

In the past year I have met many business people who want a business culture in which everyone is playing by the same rules. Many are demoralised and some are embarrassed, particularly when it comes up in front of international colleagues, by a system they believe gives a major advantage to insiders - in other words, those in power or those who are well connected.

Only 100 years ago on this island we were subjects. We are about to commemorate a blow that was struck that allowed us to become a sovereign State. The ambition went beyond that, to a republic in which each citizen is equal. That was the aspiration. Those involved aspired to create a state in which people had individual rights but no one had absolute rights, one in which rights would be measured against the common good. They envisaged a state in which the common good would be upheld by those in authority on behalf of the individual citizen. They believed only this would ensure a genuine republic.

Last week the Social Democrats launched a proposal for the establishment of a new body to tackle corruption and white-collar crime in Irish life - an independent anti-corruption agency. There can be no denying that in Ireland we do not have an effective means of preventing, investigating and prosecuting corruption. We deal with it in the aftermath rather than opting for prevention. We have a fragmented approach which ensures that many things go unchecked and unpunished. We need a consolidated, overarching approach if we are to tackle corruption effectively. That is the premise on which the independent anti-corruption agency is placed.

We are proposing a root-and-branch reform of the anti-corruption regime in Ireland, similar to that recently undertaken in Victoria, Australia.

The establishment of the agency will ensure full oversight of public procurement, new anti-corruption legislation and a standing commission of investigation, along with other measures.

The two associated tribunals, namely, the Mahon and Moriarty tribunals, cost the taxpayer in excess of €200 million, and yet the implementation of any of the findings or recommendations has been wholly unsatisfactory. In 2016 the Statue of Limitations will expire for action on Moriarty. If that occurs without action people will have a right to feel cynical.

Speaking on "Claire Byrne Live" last night, a former SIPO official, David Waddell, said the need for an agency akin to the one proposed by us is unquestioned. SIPO currently has no teeth and is essentially little more than a warning flag, but with no real powers of enforcement. Good people are involved with it, but they are very frustrated, something they have been making known for a long time.

There has been, and continues to be, a calculated removal of oversight by previous Governments and, unfortunately, by this Government. The most recent example, whereby my trek through the arduous freedom of information process was stymied with replies to parliamentary questions, shows just how difficult it is to see beneath the veil on matters of vital public interest. This calculated removal of oversight is evident at almost every level of Irish political life.

Just yesterday, Social Democrats councillor and candidate for Dublin Central, Gary Gannon, received a reply from Dublin City Council, telling him that it would not disclose the details of the tendering process for the modular homes in Ballymun as the information was commercially sensitive. The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Alan Kelly, despite refusing to acknowledge the housing emergency, has seen fit to implement emergency public procurement measures which ensure that information regarding the tendering process is restricted. The removal of oversight is exactly the kind of thing that makes people livid and destroys trust in our systems.

When I pursued issues surrounding IBRC, the Cregan inquiry was established and every other avenue to seek clarity was immediately closed down. I had pending freedom of information requests into the relationship between the Department and IBRC during the period July 2012 to the infamous promissory note night in February 2013, when banking debt was turned into sovereign debt. Those freedom of information requests were refused, but they predated the establishment of the inquiry. It is not my reading of the legislation that such requests can be refused.

I sought information because previous freedom of information requests had indicated an extremely fractious relationship between IBRC and the Department, and I wanted to understand how we came to the chaos that was the promissory note night and whether something could have happened to accelerate the extremely hasty decision. It is an issue of extreme public concern. There may well be nothing in the freedom of information requests, but we need to see the information. This is what oversight looks like, yet every avenue I pursued was closed down to me. In other words, it was, yet again, the calculated removal of oversight.

The Department had concerns about six particular transactions, of which Topaz was one. An article written by Kevin Daly in The Sunday Times, states:

The price, not disclosed on the day, is close to €500 million, making it a whopper payday ... Dennis O'Brien who acquired Topaz two years ago paid about €150 million for Topaz debt, which was sold by the liquidators to IBRC the state-owned bank, and has just forked out another €75 million to acquire ESSO Ireland. Even allowing for hefty capital investment in Topaz, they have cleared about €250 million in 24 months. "It looks like the deal of the decade" one industry source said.

These were distressed assets that were owned by the State. Is it any wonder that the Department had concerns about them?

In a letter to me last Friday, the Taoiseach kicked the interest rate issue into the long grass by claiming it is difficult to resolve, but it is a key issue. One debtor, Denis O'Brien, alleged that he was offered an interest rate via a verbal agreement outside of the normal functioning of the IBRC credit committee. It is not sufficient for the Taoiseach to say it is difficult to resolve. The question is whether this was an acceptable practice for a bank tasked with getting the optimum return for citizens. When suspicions of insider trading regarding the now notorious Siteserv transaction occurred, I wrote to the Stock Exchange, which transferred me to the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement, which in turn referred me to the Central Bank, which eventually referred me back to the Stock Exchange. Nobody had answers and nobody knew who was supposed to answer, which was worse. It is hardly a coincidence that there has never been a conviction for insider trading in this country. This is the precise point I want to make, namely, that legislation on its own is not enough. We need an agency with the power and teeth to do more than that.

In the letter sent to me by the Taoiseach, he referred to conflicts of interest in regard to members of the commission not sitting in on the work of any transaction that they may have had a connection to, yet the issues to be addressed by the commission are awash with conflicts of interest, none more so than Blackstone, one of the transactions about which the Department raised serious concerns. IBRC retained an American company, Blackstone, to advise on the disposal of its remaining loans which were worth €30 billion at nominal value. The same company, that is, Blackstone was permitted to bid for IBRC loans. When questioned about this, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, dismissed the contention that there was a conflict of interest because the company had put in Chinese walls. Quoting fromwww.namawinelake.wordpress.com, the Minister, Deputy Noonan, declined to disclose to the Dáil what money IBRC paid Blackstone for advice on its UK and Irish loan book, citing confidentiality. We do not know how much we, who own 100% of IBRC, are paying Blackstone to get advice on the sale of assets whose buyer might well be Blackstone. I have to take a deep breath when I read that because I find it upsetting.

This is taking place under the watch of a political party which in 2011 made a commitment to do something about such things. A Fine Gael document stated the same small network of professional advisers, accountants, lawyers, financial advisers or other consultants are linked to NAMA, the NTMA, the bailed-out banks, the Central Bank and the Department of Finance. This presents an obvious conflict of interest which undermines confidence in Ireland's public and private sector governance.

Is it any wonder that the people will be disappointed? This is precisely why we believe the new agency we propose is required to deal in an overarching way with the issues that constantly present so that we can get to grips with them in real-time, rather than acting retrospectively.

See this speech in context