Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Is iontach an rud é go bhfuil 20 nóiméad againn don Bhille seo. Tá sé ráite ag an Rialtas gur rud teicniúil é agus in ainneoin sin tá 20 nóiméad ann. Níos luaithe inniu bhí dhá nóiméad agam maidir le hábhar thar a bheith tábhachtach agus ní rud teicniúil a bhí ansin, sé sin, cumhachtaí an tOmbudsman do Leanaí. Glacaim leis an am go fonnmhar.

It is ironic that our group has 20 minutes to speak on a Bill that is described as technical and had five minutes for the motion on the Ombudsman for Children earlier, on which I would like to have expanded. I would have given my left arm for ten minutes on the Ombudsman's report or tomorrow's debate on mental illness. It is not the Minister of State's fault but it is interesting to put it in context. We have a full 20 minutes on a Bill that he has described as technical. I thank him for his written speech and the background to it. I also thank the Library and Research Service and gabhaim buíochas do Rannóg an Aistriúcháin as an ngluais a thug siad dúinn ionas go mbeadh muid in ann cúpla focal a rá trí Ghaeilge. Seo rud nua agus ba mhaith liom aitheantas a thabhairt don aistriúchán. Is éilliú gníomhach agus cionta éagsúla atáimid ag caint faoi anseo.

What can we do but welcome the Bill? I absolutely welcome a Bill that deals with corruption and fraud and creates new offences but, as my colleague said, this should have been done a long time ago. In fact, today is D-day, the day by which the Government was to reply to the Commission, so it is doubly ironic that we are here today. This should have been done before last July. The Bill digest makes for difficult reading. There was a "do nothing" scenario or one where we do something and doing nothing means we get a bad reputation and have to pay many fines. It raises the question of how we ended up having so much time, in the middle of a pandemic, to discuss a Bill that is technical and that should have gone through the Dáil nearly a year ago. How could that happen when this time should be used for the pandemic emergency? There are so many topics on which we would like to speak, to keep the Government on its toes and to make life easier for everybody, and here we are discussing a technical Bill. I acknowledge the work that went into it but it was belated and too late.

The Bill includes an expanded definition of fraud and a new offence of misappropriation. There is also provision for the liability arising from the offences of a corporate body. That is to be welcomed, although I am not sure how extensive it is. It will have to be monitored carefully. It also defines the scope of the European Public Prosecutor's Office, of which we are not a part. I do not know if the Minister of State will get a chance to speak on this again but I ask him to clarify the nature of our co-operation with that office. We did not opt into that section, and rightly so because we have a completely different legal system and it provides for an extension of European law into criminal law which is new and is a creeping jurisdiction. We have to be very careful. The directive allows for a European public prosecutor. How are we going to co-operate with that? What is the nature of our co-operation? Who will monitor the supra-national aspect? The prosecutor will be able to take action now in each country. I do not know whether it is good or bad, but I have concerns about the nature of our co-operation on something like that.

The extent of the fraud and corruption involved is anybody's guess. The Library and Research Service tells us there are two estimates, from the Commission's own estimate of €404 million to the House of Lords', which is €5 billion. We were very grateful to the House of Lords lately for its attitude to certain aspects of Brexit and we should be grateful to it again as it is telling us that its estimate is at the very least €5 billion and that that is only the tip of the iceberg. That is interesting in itself.

I will move on to the report by the Department of Justice's review group on corruption in Ireland. It would be nice to know when we are going to have a discussion on that. Perhaps the Minister of State could come back with a clarification on why this directive was not transposed in time. Are we facing any fines and what is the extent of our co-operation with this office that transcends and crosses borders?

The Department of Justice published a review group report on structures and strategies to prevent, investigate and penalise economic crime and corruption. We are talking about Ireland here. It is a very interesting report. There are about 122 pages if one leaves out the appendices. The foreword is very interesting because it is written by James Hamilton, the former Director of Public Prosecutions. It is dated 9 November 2020. It states, "The Review Group was established as part of a package of measures to enhance Ireland’s ability to combat economic crime." It uses the term "economic crime" in order to have a broader view of crime and corruption which would include social welfare. To me, social welfare is way down as regards crimes but the term "economic crime" includes it. The foreword further states, "The Report identifies a number of strengths and weaknesses in the existing structures for dealing with economic crime and corruption [in Ireland]".

We are putting through legislation to deal with corruption related to the use or misuse of funds in regard to VAT returns for Europe, all the while ignoring the review which has been available since last November. I appreciate that there is a pandemic. The review report outlines many weaknesses dating back years in regard to gaps and what should be done in Ireland. On the positive side, it states that the principal agencies charged with the investigation and prosecution of crime function well given the limitations imposed by their resources which in some cases, in particular in the case of the Garda National Economic Crime Bureau, are inadequate to meet existing demands as well as increasing demands which will arise in the future and that we need a more structured and co-ordinated approach. It goes on to say that there has been a continuing failure to legislate for the area of pretrial criminal procedures as recommended by the Fennelly commission report of 2003.

The review report sets out the recommendations, including legislative, structural and resourcing measures needed to enhance agency and multi-agency prevention and enforcement capabilities in the sphere of economic crime. The Minister of State will be aware of the following point, but while I have time I am going to use it. To put it in context, Ireland, a relatively small country with a population approaching 5 million, is the fifth largest provider of wholesale financial services in the EU, with more than 400 international financial institutions located here. According to EUROSTAT figures, Ireland has the fifth largest proportion of workers in the financial services and insurance activity sectors at approximately 95,000, and so on. What is the point being made? The vulnerability of the financial services sector to economic crime and corruption cannot be over-emphasised. I am referring to the foreword of the review report before it gets into the gaps and the recommendations. This report was complete at the time the pandemic struck Ireland. It goes on to speak about the increase in online activities. It needs hardly to be emphasised that all of this increases the opportunities for cyber criminals and the risk of computer crime and so on.

Promises were made to deal with white-collar crime in Ireland but nothing much has happened in relation to it. I am saying that. The purpose of the review is to examine specifically anti-fraud and anti-corruption structures and procedures in the criminal law enforcement. It goes on to make 25 recommendations. It highlights the inadequacies in many areas, including in regard to Standards in Public Office, SIPO, which has a bearing on all of our lives. The review group recommends that the independence and the capacity of SIPO be enhanced by ensuring that resources allocated to the ombudsman under Vote 19 are ring-fenced. The rationale behind this recommendation is that improving resourcing to SIPO will enable it to fulfil its mandate. The review goes on to speak about the gap whereby former Members cannot be investigated, the need for Irish competition to be amended to create a specific offence of bid rigging and the lacuna in the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995. Currently, there are no provisions for examining possible contraventions of the ethics Act by ex-Members of the Oireachtas who are not officeholders.

I do not know if the Minister of State has read the review report. I do not expect Ministers and Ministers of State to have read everything. I am working my way through the review report. No more than the mother and baby home report of 3,000 pages, it is a work in progress. It is ironic that we are here putting through this legislation while, as I said earlier, we have this report. I have three minutes remaining which I am prepared to give to the Minister of State if there is not provision for him to come back in later in order that he can tell me if the Department has looked at the review and what is being done in relation to the recommendations that are so urgent, some of which have been around for a long time. I have mentioned the legislation of 2003 and SIPO. In between, there is a variety of recommendations that could be implemented very quickly if we were seriously interested in tackling corruption and fraud in Ireland and in Europe but very often we resort to the lowest hanging fruit as in the case of social welfare.

See this speech in context