I thank the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service for inviting the members of the Standards in Public Office Commission to speak about the commission's role and functions. I am privileged to have as fellow members of the commission such eminent persons, all of whom are present today, as the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. John Purcell, the Ombudsman, Ms Emily O'Reilly, and the former Deputy and MEP, Mr. Liam Kavanagh, who served as a Minister for approximately five years in various Administrations. Mr. Kieran Coughlan and Ms Deirdre Lane, the Clerks of the Dáil and Seanad respectively, are absent. They are unable to attend for the obvious reason that the Houses are sitting. They send their apologies. Of the current commission, the three members who were also members of what I might call the "old Public Offices Commission" are the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Purcell, the Clerk of the Dáil, Mr. Coughlan, and the Clerk of the Seanad, Ms Lane. These members are experienced in dealing with the ethics legislation, which goes back, at this stage, ten years.
The standards commission was established in December 2001 by the Standards in Public Office Act 2001 to replace and assume the functions of the former Public Offices Commission. A significant change in the composition of the new commission was the requirement that the chairman should be a judge or former judge of the superior courts appointed by the President on the advice of Government following resolutions passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas. As well as ex officio members, provision was made for the appointment to the standards commission, following resolutions of both Houses of the Oireachtas, of a former Member of one of the Houses. Mr. Kavanagh is the person so appointed. I was honoured in being appointed the first chairman of the standards commission. I was subsequently appointed chairman of the Commission on Electronic Voting. As chairman of the standards commission, I am an ex officio member of the Commission for Public Service Appointments of which the ombudsman is also a member. The Ceann Comhairle chairs the Commission for Public Service Appointments.
The Standards in Public Office Commission is an independent statutory body charged with supervising the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995 and the Standards in Public Office Act 2001, known as the ethics Acts, in so far as they apply to Ministers, Ministers of State, ministerial special advisers, higher civil servants and senior executives and directors in almost 400 bodies in the commercial and non-commercial State sector. The Committees on Members' Interests of the Dáil and Seanad have the same supervisory role in respect of Members of the Houses who are not office holders.
Ethics legislation requires disclosure on an annual basis of interests held under a number of specified headings. The interests include other occupations, shareholdings, directorships, property, land, gifts, hospitality, etc. The legislation also requires the furnishing of a statement at the relevant time in circumstances where a conflict of interests might arise in the context of a function to be performed or arising out of proceedings in the Houses, including any committee of the Houses. The legislation prohibits retention by office holders of gifts valued at more than €650 received by virtue of office and outlines the steps to be taken in the event that such gifts are received. In addition, within nine months of being elected or appointed, Members of the Dáil and Seanad and senior public servants must produce to the commission evidence of compliance with their obligations under the tax code.
The legislation provides for drawing up codes of conduct for parliamentarians and public servants. The codes of conduct published by the commission and admissible in proceedings before a court, tribunal, Committee on Members' Interests and the standards commission are required to set out "standards of conduct and integrity" for the persons to whom they relate. Codes have been published for office holders, including Ministers, Ministers of State and the Chairs and deputy Chairs of both Houses, other members of the Dáil and Seanad and, more recently, civil servants. It remains for the Minister for Finance to fulfil the requirement to draw up a code for the wider public service, including bodies in the commercial and non-commercial semi-State sector.
As well as receiving and considering the various statements and other documents to which I have referred, the Standards in Public Office Commission provides advice and guidelines on compliance with ethics legislation to those covered by it. The commission is empowered to investigate and report where there is evidence of non-compliance. It should be clear that the primary objective of the commission is to ensure that all of those who are covered by the legislation are fully aware of their obligations and facilitated in every possible way to meet them.
Under section 18 of the 2001 Act, I am empowered, as chairman of the standards commission, to direct in writing any person to make discovery on oath of any documents which are or have been in the possession or control of a person and which are relevant to the commission's functions. I have exercised the power on a number of occasions to date. The commission is a permanent tribunal of inquiry and can hold sittings for the purpose of an investigation. Under the Act, I can, as chairman, direct a person who is the subject of an investigation and any other person whose evidence is required to attend before the standards commission. Such persons are obliged to give evidence and produce any document or thing in their possession which is specified in any such direction. Examination-in-chief and cross-examination are conducted under oath. It is an offence punishable by a fine or term of imprisonment to fail to co-operate with an investigation.
Under the Act, inquiry officers may be appointed by the commission to conduct preliminary investigations on its behalf in any case where a complaint has been made under the legislation. The committee should be aware that it is only possible for the commission to appoint an inquiry officer if a complaint has been received. The commission sees the caveat as a legislative shortcoming which inhibits the full and efficient performance of its functions. Under the legislation, an inquiry officer may request the person making the complaint or any other relevant person to provide a statement in writing of the evidence the person will give to the commission at an investigation; furnish to the person against whom the complaint was made particulars of the complaint and copies of any statements provided or any other relevant documents, and take a statement of evidence from the complainant.
An inquiry officer prepares a report in writing of the results of an inquiry and forwards it to the commission. While reports should not contain determinations or findings, they may, if the commission so requests, include an expression of the opinion of the inquiry officer as to whether there is prima facie evidence to sustain a complaint. The provision is a significant addition to the capacity of the commission to examine complaints into alleged breaches of the ethics Acts as it permits an inquiry officer to focus entirely on matters relevant to those Acts.
In a recent case in which the appointment of an inquiry officer could have assisted the commission to conduct a preliminary examination, it was not possible to make such an appointment as a complaint about the matter in question had not been received. It is a fact that the commission has received relatively few complaints from Members of the Houses or the public in general. A number of complaints were made, however, about the use on behalf of candidates in the 2004 European Parliament and local elections of resources paid for out of public funds. I refer to Oireachtas envelopes and paper. The commission dealt with the complaints without invoking the full investigative powers of the legislation. As well as its supervisory role under the ethics legislation, the standards commission is responsible for overseeing the provisions of the Electoral Acts 1997 to 2004 where they relate to disclosure of political donations, limits on election spending and State financing of political parties.
In December 2003, at the request of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the standards commission published a review document outlining its experience in dealing with that legislation. Under the legislation, political parties, Members of the Houses, MEPs and candidates at Dáil, Seanad, European and presidential elections are required to disclose details of donations received for political purposes. They are also required to open political donations accounts in a financial institution and to provide details to the standards commission of transactions relating to those accounts. The legislation includes a ban on accepting foreign donations and a ceiling on the value of donations which can be accepted from the same donor in the same year.
Spending restrictions at elections are in place which are regulated through a system of election agents appointed by candidates and national agents appointed by political parties who report to the standards commission. Reporting and registration obligations also arise for other groups, known as third parties, who are involved in political campaigning in an election, a referendum or otherwise. The scope of the legislation in regard to third parties is extremely wide and, in terms of supervision by the standards commission, has given rise to a number of difficulties which are outlined in the review document which I already mentioned and in the annual reports of the commission. Political parties must also account to the standards commission for the funding they receive under the Electoral Acts.
The standards commission has also, since 2002, a monitoring role under the Oireachtas (Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices) (Amendment) Act 2001 regarding spending by leaders of parliamentary parties of what is more commonly known as the party leaders' allowance. The party leaders must now furnish an annual statement to the standards commission setting out how the funding was used. This must be accompanied by a public auditor's report. The total amount of direct Exchequer funding received by political parties under the Electoral Acts and the party leaders' allowance, which must be accounted for to the standards commission, is now approximately €11 million per annum. This money cannot be used to finance election or referendum campaigns. One of the most important aspects of the legislation I have just described is the fact that the material relating to political funding and election spending is open to public scrutiny. This is facilitated by having it available for public inspection at the office of the standards commission and on its website.
The establishment of the standards commission and its predecessor, and the enactment of the legislation which I have covered in this address to the committee were part of a concerted and wide-ranging response to a demand for greater transparency in public life. Other important elements include the Freedom of Information Act 1997, the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges and Immunities of Witnesses) Act 1997 and, more recently, the Local Government Act 2001 which provides for a code of ethics for officials and members of local authorities.
In its recently published report, the Referendum Commission recommended that consideration should be given to the consolidation of electoral functions which are at present spread among a variety of statutory bodies. These include the Referendum Commission, the standards commission in so far as it is concerned with the electoral legislation, the constituency commission, the Commission on Electronic Voting and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The Referendum Commission also recommended the creation of an independent electoral commission which could oversee referenda and elections at local and national level, enforce electoral legislation, monitor election spending, promote public awareness and regulate political parties. Such a body would have the additional advantage of being a permanent and ongoing body which, in the case of a referendum, would have ample time to prepare and promote public awareness of important constitutional amendments, such as the proposed referendum on the new EU constitution.
In the area of standards in public life, what has occurred in legislative terms has been most impressive by any objective measure. It is regrettable that so little attention has been afforded to these developments. To a great extent they appear to have been overshadowed by events at the various tribunals of inquiry which, for the most part, have been dealing with occurrences that predate the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995. That distinction is not always made, however, and evidence from the tribunals can be very damaging when it comes to sustaining Ireland's reputation as a country where it is possible to conduct business in an environment that is not tainted by corruption.
The corruption perception index published annually by Transparency International is an example of a measure which might be used in forming opinions on the attractiveness or otherwise of a country in terms of decisions on inward investment. Corruption is defined as the abuse of public office for private gain. The index ranks countries in terms of "experts' perception of corruption" in the country. In the annual report of the standards commission for 2003 I noted that an improvement was recorded in that Ireland's ranking had moved from 23rd in 2002 to 18th in 2003 out of a total sample of 133 countries. In 2004, although its score remained the same, Ireland's ranking improved again, to 17th out of a total sample of 146 countries.
As with any perception index which, by its nature, is highly subjective, it is difficult to assess the value or accuracy of the corruption perception index. I understand that those polled tend to be managers in multinational companies, staff in international accounting firms and financial journalists. To the extent that it does reflect the outside view, I have no doubt that it was greatly influenced by events at the ongoing tribunals. Publication of the index gives rise to media coverage here and abroad. It formed the basis for statements in a 2002 report on behalf of the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust that corruption is a central theme of Irish life and politics and that Ireland is now regarded as one of the most corrupt European states. Most people would have great difficulty in accepting either contention. It is, however, essential that reassurance be given by accentuating the progressive steps that have been taken. This is not always done when opportunities are presented. It is also possible to focus to a greater extent on other objective analyses that portray Ireland in a positive light. In that regard, it is worth pointing out that GRECO, the Group of States against Corruption, a highly respected body that operates under the auspices of the Council of Europe, concluded in its evaluation report on Ireland — based on a factual study as distinct from perceptions and published in December 2001 — that "Ireland appears to belong to the group of those GRECO members that are least affected by corruption". It was also stated that various important legislative measures exist in Ireland which can be regarded as a strong deterrent against corrupt activities. It also made reference to the establishment of the Criminal Assets Bureau, which is highly effective in the fight against corruption and criminal activities.
In time, the progress made during the past ten years will be seen as a watershed in terms of setting down, and demanding observance of, clear standards regarding the norms of behaviour expected of those who are in the public service and are entrusted with serving the public interest. There is little point in having in place a substantial body of legislation unless it is applied fairly and consistently and unless there is a clear understanding of the obligations to be met by those who are affected by it. In this regard, I can speak for the work of the Standards in Public Office Commission regarding the ethics legislation and the Electoral Acts. Both sets of legislation are based on the assumption that the integrity of the individual will give rise to full and voluntary compliance.
There are, however, sanctions for non-compliance, all of which are serious and some of which involve criminal offences and the prospect of heavy fines and/or imprisonment. The approach of the Standards in Public Office Commission in supervising the legislation is to seek to ensure that all those who are covered are fully aware of their duties and responsibilities and that the advice given and guidelines published are comprehensive, precise and intelligible. It should be understood, however, that if there is non-compliance, the Standards in Public Office Commission will take action when it is considered necessary and appropriate, including referral of files to the Director of Public Prosecutions, as has already occurred on a number of occasions in respect of the Electoral Acts.
No system is perfect and, no doubt, further refinement and expansion of our laws and procedures will be necessary in the years ahead. The one certainty, however, is that leadership and encouragement from the very highest levels of the public service are essential to ensure that the standards of behaviour we have come to expect of our public servants are maintained and that the citizens of this country can have confidence that the public interest will always take precedence over the personal interests of the individuals by whom they are served.
