Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies for their contributions all of which I regard as valuable in the context of this debate. It is an important Bill. I acknowledge the broad support in the House for the provisions contained therein. I welcome what I see as a shared determination to bring forward robust legislation in this area. Nobody wants to see any corrupt activities go unpunished. As such we need to ensure that our laws are effective in tackling corrupt acts and practices. Corruption is not just a national problem. It is not just an Irish issue. It is a universal problem. The EU anti-corruption report estimates that it amounts to 5% of global gross domestic product, GDP, which represents an enormous drain on economies and nation states. This is not to suggest that corruption presents a large problem in this country.

In the latest Transparency International corruption perceptions index, Ireland was deemed to be 19th least corrupt country in the world. While this is a positive outcome, of course there is no question of anybody ever becoming complacent on this matter.

Dealing with the Bill as published, as Deputies appreciate the Bill does not just provide for new offences and harsher penalties. As I stated earlier, it represents a modernisation of the law on corruption by providing for a single accessible corruption statute. Ireland has been the subject of some criticism internationally over the years for having out of date statutes in this area and for the use oftentimes of terminology that might have given rise to certain confusion. I believe the Bill will address these concerns. It will enable Ireland to fulfil a number of our international obligations under the various anti-corruption conventions in a clear and transparent way.

I will briefly inform the House of my intention to bring forward amendments on Committee Stage. These amendments are to give effect to outstanding recommendations of the OECD from its phase 3 evaluation of Ireland and recommendation 1a and 6a relating to the consolidation of Irish corruption offences and amending the dual criminality exception for the money laundering offence in the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act 2010. My officials are working with the office of the Attorney General regarding the proposed amendments, and it is my intention to make progress on them on Committee Stage.

Deputies Mattie McGrath, Shortall and others mentioned the delay in bringing the Bill to the House, and there has been some commentary in the media on what was perceived to be a delay in the matter of this important legislation. I point out this has been a top priority for me as Minister for Justice and Equality since I entered office in the summer of this year. I know it has taken longer than expected, but the Bill deals with a highly technical and complex issue encompassing a wide body of law already on the Statute Book and issues of a constitutional nature. I hope the time invested in getting the detail right will save us some time in the course of the parliamentary process.

Some Deputies in the course of the debate mentioned issues relating to the banking sector. While I appreciate this input, the Bill is not the appropriate forum for regulation of the entire banking sector. The main corruption offences in the Bill will cover those who are employed in the financial sector, as will the corporate liability offence in section 18.

I appreciate Deputy Ó Laoghaire's contribution, and he and other Sinn Féin Deputies referred to the fact there does not appear to be provision in the Bill for a court to prohibit anybody from seeking to be elected to the Dáil, the Seanad, the European Parliament or a local authority following conviction for a corruption offence. There were, of course, some constitutional issues raised regarding the prohibition of a person seeking to be elected to Dáil Éireann, and some clarity was provided in this area by Deputy O'Callaghan in the course of his contribution. He is right that any conviction would be a matter of public record and voters would be aware of the fact that a candidate had such a conviction. Of course, ultimately, under the Constitution, as was pointed out by Deputy O'Callaghan, the citizens of the State and those entitled to vote in our elections, having regard to the circumstances of each individual, as they always do, would exercise their democratic right accordingly. I believe this is as it should be.

Deputy Jack Chambers said we needed to see further Mahon tribunal recommendations brought forward. In this regard, the recommendations made by the Mahon tribunal related to legislative and other reforms in a number of areas, some of which are the responsibility of other Departments. There are some which I do not believe it would be appropriate to include in this legislation. The corruption offences Bill before us gives effect to six of the recommendations made by the Mahon tribunal. Other outstanding recommendations will soon be addressed in the forthcoming criminal justice (money laundering and terrorist financing) (amendment) Bill and the European Union freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime regulations of 2017.

As was noted by Deputy Cullinane on the matter of reasonable steps to be taken by a body corporate, should a body corporate face proceedings for the corporate liability offence under section 18, it shall be a defence for it to prove it took reasonable steps and exercised due diligence to avoid commission of the offence. It will be important that companies have adequate systems in place to deal with corruption at all levels of the organisation. Ultimately, these issues will be decided in the course of a trial by the court, especially whether a body corporate did, in fact, take all reasonable steps regarding whether the company or corporate entity exercised an appropriate level of due diligence to avoid the commission of a corruption offence. It is worth noting that in the UK a similar strict liability offence was incorporated in legislation, but the accompanying guidelines as to what are reasonable steps ran to something in the region of 100 pages. We had a look at that in the context of this legislation. We were advised against following a similar course of action and introducing a similar schedule of guidelines. I believe that on balance this is best left to the court, although I am sure it is an issue we will come back to in the context of Committee Stage of the Bill and we will have an opportunity to engage in this regard.

Deputy Chambers mentioned that a joined-up Government approach is needed. As I mentioned earlier, the Bill forms part of a larger range of measures aimed at tackling economic and regulatory crime. These measures will collectively increase transparency and strengthen our response to white-collar crime in the country. We are committed to a number of measures, including the publication and enactment of a criminal procedure Bill that will reduce delays in criminal trials, particularly those involving complex issues, by providing for pretrial hearings on certain legal issues to take place before the jury is empanelled. The Bill will also make provision for the electronic transfer of warrants and the greater use of video link hearings. Both measures will make use of available technology, which will have the effect of cutting down on delays that are regarded as unnecessary.

We will carry out our comprehensive review of anti-corruption and anti-fraud structures and how they are working together to combat white-collar crime effectively. This will involve all State bodies with a role in the detection, prevention, investigation and prosecution of fraudulent and corrupt activities. As part of this Garda-led joint agency task force, this will be piloted to examine specific areas of white-collar crime in more detail. It will involve the Central Bank and the Garda Síochána, and various other industry representative bodies will feed into the overall review of anti-corruption procedures and structures.

I assure Deputy O'Callaghan, who made mention of local authority members, that they are covered under the definition of Irish officials. They can also be regarded as included in paragraph (j) of the definition of an Irish official as an officer, director, employee or member of an Irish public body. As Deputies will note, they are excluded from the operation of section 17(4)(c), which is the prohibition to seek office, for the reasons I have mentioned earlier in the context of Members of these Houses.

Deputy Paul Murphy referred to section 18 regarding a strict liability corporate offence, which is designed to prevent acts of corruption. The defence that a company has conducted due diligence and taken all reasonable steps is designed to get companies to behave in a manner that can be regarded as proper. There will be obligations on companies and requirements to put in place systems and introduce training in the workplace, but it will be for the court ultimately to decide whether the company acted sufficiently to rebut the presumption.

I acknowledge what Deputy Shortall has said.

I know her party has long supported the establishment of a stand-alone anti-corruption agency that would assume the functions of the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement, the Standards in Public Office Commission, the Registrar of Lobbyists and the Competition and Consumer Protection Authority and would accordingly be granted wide powers, including powers of investigation and prosecution. I am not convinced the establishment of such an agency represents the best way forward at this stage. It is not clear how a new agency would enhance capacity in this area. I believe we should reflect on the good interagency co-operation we have in this area, particularly the work of the Criminal Assets Bureau.

I remind Deputy Shortall that as part of a package of measures aimed at addressing white-collar crime, the Department of Justice and Equality has agreed to conduct a review of the effectiveness of those State bodies that have a role in the prevention, detection and investigation of crime and the prosecution of fraud and corruption. The question of whether we need an agency of the type proposed will be considered in the context of the Department's review. In any event, the Bill before the House is still needed. It updates the corruption offences and penalties on our Statute Book.

Deputy Shortall also referred to the Public Sector Standards Bill 2015. I can inform her that the Committee Stage debate on the Bill is unlikely to take place until the spring of next year. As Deputies will be aware, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform is prioritising the unwinding of the FEMPI legislation. That work is likely to consume much of the Department's parliamentary time over the coming weeks. I would be happy to convey the Deputy's concern to the Minister. I acknowledge the contributions of Deputies during this evening's discussion. I look forward to the House debating this Bill on Committee Stage. In the meantime, I commend the Bill to the House.

See this speech in context