Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The publication of the Public Sector Standards Bill 2015 is to be warmly welcomed. It is, however, unfortunate and a great pity that the Bill will not come into force before the dissolution of the Dáil. It represents a lost opportunity by the Government to bring together both local and national ethics requirements which give effect to the recommendations of the Moriarty and Mahon tribunals. A commitment to enact such legislation was given by the Government in the statement of Government priorities 2014 to 2016. If I am wrong and it is, in fact, the Minister's intention to bring the legislation through all Stages before the Dáil is dissolved, he might let us know of his plans.

This is incredibly important legislation. Political and public institutions in Ireland, as in many other countries, face great challenges in ensuring both transparency and accountability. The general public, public servants and politicians alike should be concerned about standards in public life. I believe they are concerned about them. Our behaviour as politicians and that of public officials should be thoroughly scrutinised. The putting in place of ethics legislation that can put us, as politicians, and all other public officials under scrutiny can only be welcomed. It is important that this be done efficiently and comprehensively. It is clear that the current piecemeal approach has not given rise to best practice. In addition, it has not prevented the abuses we have seen and which loomed large for many decades. Some of this corruption, in various guises, has received extensive coverage in the media, most recently in an RTE investigation Into potentially corrupt practices by public officials. Such incidents that have been prominent in the media may, of course, be just the tip of the iceberg.

The question arises, therefore, as to whether there is still a hidden, underlying layer or culture of corruption in the State. Does it persist to this very day? It is hard to know for certain, but there is a public fear or suspicion that that is the case. We do know, unfortunately, as a country and body politic, that we are not immune to corruption. It has been suggested by Transparency International Ireland that Ireland is highly vulnerable to corruption. It pointed to its own independent data and analysis, as well as the findings of the Mahon and Moriarty tribunals, when it arrived at this conclusion. The mechanisms in place for detecting corruption are clearly inadequate. We are not good at exposing corruption. It often remains for others such as RTE to bridge that gap and investigate and expose corruption. It is a job that surely should be the function of the State.

We have a poor record in holding those responsible for corruption to account. That lack of enforcement has been at the root of the problem in tackling corruption in Ireland. That view was echoed by the experts from whom we heard at the committee when we considered the heads of the Bill. Therefore, we need to reflect carefully on this issue. When many might have thought the days of brown envelopes were over, the recent RTE investigation into corruption in county councils showed that it was alive and kicking in some quarters, at least. Why would it not be, given that the greatest weakness in ethics legislation up to now has been the lack of enforcement? "Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time" is the old maxim, but it is very unlikely that someone would ever do time if he or she was caught. Where is the deterrent for those who are so inclined to take a brown envelope or a backhander? What is to discourage those who are so tempted from taking a backhander when it is most unlikely to have adverse consequences for them? In fact, as we have seen in the past, it has not inhibited some political careers. If one was super-cynical, one might argue that it might have enhanced some careers, but why is that the case? Is it political apathy? Despite all the talk of a democratic revolution, the reality is that we are only now at the end of this Dáil and the Government's term getting to grips with proper legislation that could go some way towards addressing the failings of the piecemeal approach which has been adopted up to now.

Declarations of interest, tax clearance certificates and election spending returns are all filed with the Standards in Public Office Commission, SIPO. I join the Minister in acknowledging its work during the years.

It is only proper to do so. The commission oversees the implementation of the ethics legislation as it now stands. The commission has recognised the need for a single comprehensive Act to deal with conflicts of interests and ethics in public office. The commission in the past has recommended that ethics legislation be consolidated, and a clear set of principles should be set out, which would apply to all in public life, thereby giving absolute clarity to all, leaving no margin for error or misunderstanding.

A real dilemma and weakness for SIPO, apart from being hampered implementing disjointed ethics legislation, was that it could not initiate investigations. After the recent scandal involving councillors highlighted in the most recent RTE investigation and taking into account previous instances when councillors, Deputies and even Ministers were apparently accepting cash for favours, it will come as a surprise to many that the commission, as the statutory body responsible for compliance with ethics legislation, does not or did not have the power to initiate investigations into these matters.

Furthermore, as it now stands the investigative process is quite cumbersome. For example, if a member of the public wishes to make a complaint about a local authority member, he or she would have to make the complaint to the ethics registrar of each county council. The complaint can then be referred to the county manager and the cathaoirleach of the council. Only after all local procedures have been exhausted and if the county manager and the cathaoirleach deem it appropriate, can it then refer the individual's complaint to SIPO. It is a circuitous route.

Local authority members must also provide a declaration of interest to the registrar every year, much in the same way that Deputies make annual declarations to SIPO. If Deputies and Senators have left anything off their annual declarations of interest, they are able to make supplementary additions. Any complaints against Deputies or Senators are made to the respective Clerks of each House. These complaints can then be referred to the committee on Members' interests for the Dáil or the Seanad, respectively. They can then be referred back to SIPO, which can investigate the complaint and decide whether to refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

One of the complaints of SIPO is that while it can initiate its own investigations into Deputies or even Ministers, it can only do so if it has received a complaint. If no complaint has been received, no investigation can be undertaken. SIPO has described its current role as being reactive rather than proactive. Those who are tasked with investigating matters of complaint are plagued with a lack of resources, as well as not having the independence and the statutory powers to investigate abuses in public office.

I hope that the Public Sector Standards Bill, if properly resourced and implemented, will provide for a more efficient, organised, streamlined and clearly laid out structure of ethical behaviour expected from all public officials. I hope that the legislation in practice will prove robust and effective.

We have been told that the primary objective of the legislation will be to provide a consistent approach to ethics legislation across the public sector in line with international best practice. Some of the key elements of the legislation are, for example, that it will provide a set of integrity principles for all public officials. In terms of disclosure by public officials, the legislation strengthens the legal obligation for disclosure of actual and potential conflicts of interest, which I welcome. Contrary to Deputy Sean Fleming's concerns, this is not about trying to hold people captive within the public sector. It is certainly not intended to limit people's opportunities or ambition, but it is to ensure disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Any ethical framework must have that absolutely at its core. So I welcome that.

In addition, the legislation extends the scope of personal and material disclosures to be made by public officials. We should look further into the proposed categories of public officials and revise the current proposal that only the most senior levels of public officials make the widest disclosures. We will return to that on Committee Stage.

The Bill interestingly also proposes a single public sector standards commissioner. Initially, I was in two minds as to whether I would be in favour of a panel or commission similar to SIPO rather than having a single commissioner and a deputy. The membership of the standards commission has brought to it a wide range of experience and knowledge but on reflection I see the merit of a single commissioner. As with an ombudsman, the commissioner will be the go-to person. The buck will stop with her or him and blame or otherwise will not be dissipated among a committee. However, there is also merit in finding a mechanism which could draw on the talents and experience acquired over years of the members of the standards commission. Why not utilise this accumulated wealth of knowledge and experience in some way?

I particularly welcome that the commissioner will be able to initiate his or her own investigations even if a complaint has not been made. That is critical. The proposed legislation allows for any person to make a complaint in writing to the commissioner. This is an improvement on the current position, whereby only specific categories of person can make complaints or have complaints made against them. However, there is a problem with the proposed method as to how complaints are made to the commissioner and we will be proposing at a later Stage other options and ways for people to make a complaint to the commissioner.

I particularly welcome the proposed increased powers of sanction and enforcement on a range of contraventions. As I said earlier, enforcement is the crux of such legislation and it has been severely lacking up to now. The way the current ethics legislation is laid out and the lack of sanction have led greatly, one suspects, to the ongoing and historical scandals and controversies with which, sadly, we are too familiar.

I do not believe the legislation is yet complete and it will require some tweaking and consideration. We expect at a later stage in good faith to be submitting amendments to the Bill, as we see the proposed legislation as a work in progress. I welcome that the Minister has indicated openness to that discussion. It is important legislation and we need to get it right. Deputy Howlin may or may not be the Minister at that stage.

See this speech in context