This meeting has been convened to consider a motion on the approval of the terms of the United Nations Convention against Corruption. I welcome the Minister for Justice and Equality and his officials to the meeting and invite the Minister to make an opening statement.
United Nations Convention against Corruption: Motion
I thank members for their comments on the late Garda Ciaran Jones. His untimely and tragic death is a huge loss to his parents, family, colleagues and friends. He was a young garda attached to Stepaside Garda station in my own constituency who intervened to assist members of the public while off duty. His concern was for the safety of others not himself. In an act which was intended to save the lives of others, he suffered the tragedy of being swept into a torrent that had developed. It is a great shock to his local community and the people of Stepaside, who know him from his time there. I thank the members of the committee for their comments. I had a conversation with the Garda Commissioner earlier today. I relayed my condolences, as Minister for Justice and Equality, and those of the Government to the Garda Commissioner on the tragedy that has occurred.
I thank the select committee for agreeing to consider this motion, which relates to an important matter. The United Nations Convention against Corruption was adopted by the UN General Assembly in October 2003 and was signed on behalf of Ireland in December of that year. It is one of a number of international agreements made over the past 12 years by the Council of Europe, the OECD and the EU, as well as the UN, that reflect the concern of the international community to tackle corruption. The aim of the convention, which provides a set of standards and rules, is to encourage countries to strengthen their legal and regulatory regimes to fight corruption within the private and public sectors.
Corruption has damaged not only political and business interests in the State, but this country's reputation abroad. It is important to remedy that by tackling corruption in our domestic laws and systems and in co-operation with the international community. More than 150 states are a party to the convention, including virtually all EU member states. It is a matter of some regret that it is only now, eight years after signing the convention, that Ireland is in a position to ratify it. Despite having not yet ratified the convention, Ireland has participated in the conferences for states that are party to it. My Department is represented at the UN conference taking place this week. This is an indication of our continuing commitment to and support for the UN in the process of tackling corruption.
The convention is an international agreement within the meaning of Article 29.5.1° of the Constitution. The Attorney General has advised that this agreement involves a charge upon public funds within the meaning of Article 29.5.2° of the Constitution. As a result, the terms of the convention require prior Dáil approval. Article 46(28) of the convention provides that the ordinary costs of executing a mutual assistance request shall be borne by the requested state party, unless otherwise agreed. Although such costs are covered in the Votes of my Department and the Garda Síochána in the usual way, this can be seen to create a charge upon public funds. For these reasons, the approval of Dáil Éireann to the terms of the agreement is required to ensure the validity of its ratification.
Most of the provisions of the convention reflect existing Irish anti-corruption legislation and practice for many years. It was considered preferable not to proceed with the formal ratification of this measure until after the enactment of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2010, which strengthened the law on corruption, and the introduction of the enhanced money laundering regime under the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act 2010. Ireland has already participated in the conferences arranged for state parties to the convention, which are aimed at promotion and review of the implementation of the instrument among states.
The convention is a comprehensive anti-corruption treaty. It provides a set of standards and rules to encourage countries to strengthen their legal and regulatory regimes to fight corruption in the private and public sectors. Its aims are to promote, facilitate and support international co-operation and technical assistance in the prevention of and fight against corruption. Ireland's international reputation will be enhanced by becoming a party to the convention. It will underline our commitment to working with international partners to combat corruption. Ratification is also important in the light of the commitments in the programme for Government proposing consolidation and reform of our corruption laws. Ireland will chair the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe in 2012. It is intended that good governance, including anti-corruption initiatives, will be a priority measure during our term of office. For all these reasons, it is desirable that we proceed with ratification of the convention.
The UN convention is one of a number of anti-corruption instruments. Since 2003, the State has been a party to the OECD convention and the Council of Europe criminal law convention on this subject, as well as the European Union instrument on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests. The OECD and Council of Europe Group of States Against Corruption, GRECO, carries out regular evaluation of member states' implementation of these agreements. Ratification of the UN convention will entail a similar evaluation for this State. The EU is currently developing its anti-corruption strategy in the context of the Stockholm programme. It is likely to develop a formal association with GRECO.
I will summarise the key points of the convention and recent legislative developments of relevance. The convention is structured around four themes – preventive measures, criminalisation, international co-operation and asset recovery. The key anti-corruption legislation in this State is the Prevention of Corruption Acts 1889 to 2010. The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2010 strengthened the law on corruption, particularly by substantially extending the State's extra-territorial jurisdiction in respect of the corruption offence so that jurisdiction now extends to virtually all people who have a connection with the State. The Act also contains extensive protection for whistleblowers reporting corruption offences. The Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act 2010 strengthened regulatory controls and broadened the range of offences considered as predicate offences for money laundering. The Criminal Justice Act 2011, which was enacted just before the summer recess and is now in force, targets serious white collar crime including fraud and corruption and enhances the power of the Garda to investigate such offences.
The following preventive provisions in the convention are of note. Article 6 requires states to ensure the existence of anti-corruption bodies tasked with implementing anti-corruption strategies. It is considered that bodies such as the Standards in Public Office Commission, the Ombudsman, the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Director of Corporate Enforcement, the Criminal Assets Bureau, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Garda Síochána fulfil this role within the State. Articles 7 to 9 concern the public sector and require codes of conduct for public officials and appropriate public procurement practices. Relevant implementation measures include the Ethics in Public Office Acts 1995 and 2001, the codes of conduct for the public and local government sectors and the Freedom of Information Acts. Article 7.3 of the convention deals with the transparency of funding of candidates for elected office and political parties. The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government has advised that existing provisions in the Electoral Act 1997 and the Local Elections (Disclosure of Donations and Expenses) Act 1999 are being strengthened and enhanced through the Electoral (Amendment) (Political Funding) Bill 2011, which is being drafted.
Articles 15 to 23 address offences including bribery, embezzlement and money laundering. These are provided for in the Prevention of Corruption Acts 1889 to 2010, the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 and the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act 2010. The confiscation matters addressed in Article 31 are provided for under the Criminal Justice Act 1994 and the Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Act 2008. Other matters provided for include co-operation between national authorities, protection for people reporting offences under the convention and statute of limitations issues. The relevant legislative provisions in respect of asset recovery and technical assistance in Chapters V and VI are the proceeds of crime, terrorist financing and mutual assistance Acts. The money laundering investigation unit of the Garda Síochána carries out functions in relation to Article 58, which is the financial intelligence unit provision. Existing training programmes and ongoing activities, including channels of information exchange, cover the requirements in Chapter VI.
The Government is committed to tackling corruption, not only through punitive measures but through effective prevention. The programme for Government promises consolidation and reform of anti-corruption law. My officials are preparing heads of a Bill to update the eight different statutory measures comprising the Prevention of Corruption Acts, which span from 1889 to 2010, and bring them into one comprehensible and accessible Bill. I hope to bring these heads to the Government for approval and to publish them next year. My colleague, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, is working on measures in the area of public reform which are relevant to the prevention of corruption, including the commitment to introduce a statutory register of lobbyists and rules concerning the practice of lobbying.
The ratification of this convention is not merely appropriate at this stage - it is also a necessary step towards demonstrating our commitment to tackle corruption and clean up public life here. Our international reputation will suffer if there is any further delay in ratification. The convention facilitates greater international co-operation in tackling corruption. Through its evaluation system, it will also allow Ireland to demonstrate that our anti-corruption laws and systems meet international standards. I look forward to hearing the contributions of the committee members and I commend the motion to the committee.
Dealing with the matter in this way is also complementary to initiatives that I have taken in Europe. I have spoken with both the relevant European Commissioners and the justice Ministers of the Council of Ministers with a view to preparing a directive which would extend the type of provisions we have in the Criminal Assets Bureau for the seizure of goods of those who are engaged in corruption and other activities where they have used resources gained from crime. This would allow us introduce a uniform approach across Europe which would allow our Criminal Assets Bureau to interact with similar agencies in other member states to recover assets which may have derived from criminal activity conducted in this country and where the proceeds are spent in other EU states. A document is being prepared at EU level to look at this area with a view to going beyond what I would describe as the criminal forfeiture of goods, which already occurs in a number EU countries, towards introducing an agency that replicates what we are doing in this State. In developing this proposal at European level, we hope to bring it to fruition during this State's Presidency of the European Community in 2013.
In commending the motion to the House, I would like to say that it is a ratification mechanism which adds to the artillery available in tackling corruption on an international co-operative basis.
I thank the Minister for attending. How many EU countries have signed up to this directive at this stage? I welcome the work the Minister is doing on a European version of CAB. Is he confident that we can finalise it during our Presidency? Does he envisage the establishment of the agency during the Presidency so that it will be at work on the ground?
Nearly all the EU states have signed up to this and apply it.
Has the UK done so?
Yes. A couple of states have not done so but I do not have the exact numbers. I will communicate that to the Deputy after the meeting.
Work has gone into developing a European framework which I hope will lead to the creation of replica agencies such as CAB across the EU. This is in its early stages. The Slovenian Parliament has been enacting legislation of this nature in the last couple of weeks. The Bulgarian Parliament had legislation before it just before the summer recess, but I do not know if that has completed its passage yet. I have had active meetings and consultations with a series of justice Ministers at Council level. There is a great deal of interest and enthusiasm for developing this at Council and Commission level. A framework paper is being prepared which I hope will lead to the issue being fully considered at a future Council meeting, as opposed to the informal discussions that have taken place so far, although I have already alluded to it at a full Council meeting. I expect we will make real progress as we enter into 2012, and I hope that this will be one of the issues that we will bring to finality during the 2013 Presidency.
I think anybody in their right mind would approve the ratification of this convention. I am more interested in the technical aspect of the process by which it has come before the House for approval. The Attorney General has deemed that participation is a charge on the Exchequer and therefore, it requires approval of the Dáil. However, I note the Minister stated that Ireland has participated in conferences for states that were party to the convention prior to now, which obviously would have led to a charge on the Exchequer. Does that imply that there is a difference between the current Attorney General's interpretation of the convention and the interpretation of previous Attorneys General? How did we participate in previous conferences without Dáil approval, which resulted in a charge on the Exchequer? There would been a charge, consequent on our ratification of the convention in 2003. Why does the Attorney General now take the view that this charge necessitates Dáil approval?
The charge derives from us effectively ratifying the convention and meeting obligations that would be imposed in this State under it, in the context of those that are also parties to the convention and which have ratified. There are 150 state parties to the convention and a considerable number have not yet ratified it, including ourselves, and this is the ratification process. Representatives of several of these states would have attended meetings on the convention at UN level as essentially observers. They have an observer status that facilitates their attendance. The charge is not for attending the UN, but in the context of applying domestically the obligations that arise under the convention.
The Minister said that after eight years, Ireland is in a position to ratify the convention. Why was there a delay? I strongly support the motion, but what practical steps on the ground is the Government taking to tackle corruption both in private life and public life?
The Minister also raised the lobbying issue. I presume he differentiates between genuine lobbying and lobbying where huge sums of money are exchanged. What is the Minister's view on this type of lobbying, which has now been rejected by the vast majority of the Irish people?
Certain business people were criticised in the Moriarty tribunal report, yet they turned up at a Government sponsored event in Dublin Castle. Does the Minister think that this sends out the message to the general public that we are all gone soft on these issues in public life?
On a personal level, I would like to have seen this ratification process taking place earlier, but an amount of legislation had to be enacted. I made reference to two Bills in 2010 that were enacted. It is the practice of this State not to ratify conventions until domestic legislation is compliant with the obligations of the convention. There were two important Bills enacted in 2010 which facilitate the ratification so that we can fulfil our obligations under the convention. The Criminal Justice Act 2011 assists the Garda Síochána in investigating a broad range of criminal activities, including that of corruption, and this enhances our capacity to apply our anti-corruption laws.
The Deputy asked about invitations to individuals to attend Government sponsored events. I presume he is referring to the global forum. I am not in the business of pillorying any individual who is not there to defend himself or herself. I saw that routine being conducted on "The Frontline" last night. I thought what had happened was despicable when, in the context of the presidential debate, an individual had been named. Candidates were asked either to praise or condemn that individual. The individual to whom the Deputy is referring has made a substantial contribution to Irish business life. We are all aware of the existence of a report which makes some critical comments on one aspect of it. It is not appropriate at this committee to enter into that debate, nor is it relevant to the matter at hand.
It is very relevant.
I am not going to head down that route. In a democracy it is legitimate for people to lobby, but it is not legitimate to do so in a corrupt way. I hope that in the future we will have legislation providing for a register of lobbyists to have transparency concerning those who are recruited to lobby for remuneration on behalf of an organisation or business. It would be done in an open way by registered lobbyists. The Deputy may have noticed that the political world has changed somewhat since the last election. There are different parties in power and no one can accuse the Government of engaging in inappropriate activities.
A fund.
I am just not going to go there.
The Minister seems to be hanging out there.
I do not want to make false allegations against a previous Government. People make judgments based on their knowledge of events. It is for individuals to make judgments based on their knowledge and assessment of the information available to them.
I thank the Minister for his contribution. I wish to ask him one or two questions. The convention has 71 articles. Is the Minister satisfied that the State is in a position to adhere to all of the conditions set and demands made in all of these articles, or is there more work to be done, either on a regulatory or legislative level?
The Minister referred to one or two issues concerning legislation on lobbyists. Are there proposals to amend the charges under the Freedom of Information Acts? Does he have plans to include the Garda Síochána, members of which are excluded?
I understand there is no compulsion on civil servants to report evidence or incidences of corruption and that anonymous reporting to the authorities is not permitted. Does the Minister have plans to change this?
I will take the questions in reverse order. With regard to the Civil Service, it is part of the programme for Government to introduce whistleblower legislation in order that if individuals, be they in the public or the private sector, are aware of corrupt conduct, acting in good faith they will be able to make reports to An Garda Síochána or an appropriate body which investigates these matters without a particular difficulty arising. When we published the Criminal Justice Bill 2011, it contained a specific provision which is now part of the Act. Amendments were introduced, either here or in the Dáil Chamber, which included specific provisions to provide protection in a case of whistleblowing.
The programme for Government provides for amendments to the Freedom of Information Acts. It is the responsibility of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, to bring them forward. However, I do not expect we will see this happening until next year at the earliest because of the huge amount of work he must undertake across a broad range of expenditure issues concerning the public service. Nonetheless, such amendments are part of the programme for Government.
I was asked if I was satisfied that current legislation was compliant with our obligations under the convention. I believe it is. The Attorney General is also satisfied that it is. Once we have ratified the convention, we will become a party to the oversight mechanism to which I referred. If it emerges that changes are required in our laws or administrative practices, obviously as a party to the convention and being obliged under international law to comply with its provisions, we would have to take seriously any recommendations made. I would expect the Government and any future Administration to implement any recommendations that might result from such an oversight mechanism or an inquiry.
What about the inclusion of the Garda Síochána in freedom of information legisation?
That issue is being considered. As Minister for Justice and Equality, I am conscious that there are difficulties in that regard. In the past An Garda Síochána was deliberately excluded from freedom of information legislation. There are substantial security issues that require consideration. There are also issues concerning the safety of Garda personnel. I would, therefore, have some serious reservations about the wisdom of extending the freedom of information provisions to An Garda Síochána. If they were to be extended, they would be extended to what I would describe as a narrow range of administrative practices which did not impact on the overall operational decision-making or capacities of An Garda Síochána. However, that is an issue to be considered further when draft legislation is produced.
Are statistics produced by the Garda Síochána for instances of corruption?
There are annual statistics produced by the Central Statistics Office which detail such instances. I cannot recall the most recent statistics published, but they did detail the number of alleged corruption offences reported and prosecuted. It is interesting to note the comments made by the Director of Public Prosecutions in an interview published in the Sunday Business Post. The Director of Public Prosecutions addressed the issue of the possible complexity of prosecutions brought using anti-corruption laws where the alleged offences involved complex financial dealings and inter-company financial transactions, or transactions involving one or more financial institution. Under our jury system which under the criminal justice system has a constitutional foundation, introducing the changes proposed would require a constitutional referendum. There is a great advantage in picking juries from ordinary men and women, rather than specialists. Other countries have discovered that trials involving corruption charges of a complex financial nature require a degree of specialty to ensure the evidence presented is adequately assessed by juries, but that is not something that forms part of current Government policy. However, it was interesting to note what the Director of Public Prosecutions had to say in that context. It is an issue to which consideration may need to be given. Perhaps it is one that might usefully be considered in the context of the constitutional convention to take place next year. It is an issue, however, that needs to be carefully teased out and is of some relevance to the matters under discussion.
Is it agreed that there be no further debate on the motion in Dáil Éireann? Agreed. I thank the Minister and his officials for attending.