Annual Report 2002

Introduction by the Chairman

This is the first annual report of the Standards in Public Office Commission (the Standards Commission) which was established in December 2001 by the Standards in Public Office Act, 2001 (the Standards Act). The Standards Commission replaced, and assumed all of the functions, of the former Public Offices Commission which was established in November 1995 by the Ethics in Public Office Act, 1995 (the 1995 Act). The 1995 Act and the Standards Act are known together as the Ethics in Public Office Acts, 1995 and 2001 (the Ethics Acts).

I was honoured to be appointed by the President as the first Chairman of the Standards Commission, on the advice of the Government, following resolutions passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas. I am privileged to have as fellow Commissioners the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Ombudsman, the Clerk of Dáil Éireann, the Clerk of Seanad Éireann and Mr. Liam Kavanagh who has served as a member of the Dáil, as a Minister and as a member of the European Parliament. The Standards Act strengthens substantially the body of ethics legislation, as will be described in more detail later in this report, and incorporates many of the suggestions made by the former Public Offices Commission.

Experience has shown that constant vigilance in maintaining ethical standards is essential to safeguarding integrity and tackling corruption. Events in Ireland in recent years, including material emanating from tribunals and other public inquiries, show that there is a pressing need to continually monitor and, where appropriate, raise standards in the public interest. The Standards Commission, as a body established by the Oireachtas to supervise both the Ethics Acts and the Electoral Acts, 1997 to 2002 (the Electoral Acts), is committed to making a major contribution towards this objective.

I am already on record as saying that substantial progress has been made in terms of putting in place a wide body of legislation which creates many new obligations in terms of disclosure of interests by parliamentarians and public servants and introduces comprehensive regulation in the area of political funding. It is regrettable that, for the most part, the real and very tangible benefits of this legislation, and other developments, have not attracted the positive evaluation which they merit and that concentration by media and other commentators seems to focus almost entirely on negative factors. The concept of openness, accountability and transparency, which is clearly embedded in the legislation, is about more than hitherto inaccessible material now being in the public domain. It also requires recognition that major change has occurred in recent years and an acceptance on the part of those who are reporting events, or who are opinion formers, that they have an obligation to provide balance, including giving credit where this is due, when they are dealing with matters which are of great public importance.

I regret to say that, in my experience to date, the latter has not been greatly in evidence. The result is that many citizens, and influential outside observers of Irish affairs, are of the opinion that we have a serious problem of corruption in the public sector. This view is supported by, for example, the findings of the international body Transparency International which, in its Corruption Perception Index for 2002, ranked Ireland in 23rd position out of 102 countries surveyed, a fall from 18th position in 2001. The sources used in determining Ireland's position were the University of Columbia, the Institute for Management Development in Switzerland, the Economist Intelligence Unit and the World Economic Forum. The findings led to comment in at least one publication that "corruption is a central theme of Irish life and politics and that Ireland is now regarded as one of the more corrupt European states". I do not accept either contention. The concern is, however, that the perception is out there and may be a cause of damage to this country in a number of respects, including in relation to inward investment.

To illustrate my point about the need for balance, it is worth drawing attention to the fact that, in contrast to the Transparency International findings, GRECO (Group of States against Corruption), a highly respected body which operates under the auspices of the Council of Europe, in its evaluation report on Ireland in 2002, which was based on a factual study rather than perceptions, concluded that "Ireland appears to belong to the group of those GRECO members that are least affected by corruption". Interestingly, the Transparency International findings were afforded considerable prominence in the media and elsewhere with, as far as I am aware, virtually no coverage of the GRECO study.

As is the case in most countries, there are many issues affecting Government and civil society in areas such as the environment, crime, healthcare, housing, social services, infrastructure, etc. To suggest, however, as seems to occur on a regular basis and without much thought, that corruption is at the core of the difficulties we face in all of these matters does not stand up to objective scrutiny. It is vital, in the national interest, that when we speak of corruption we are clear as to its meaning which is the abuse of public office for private gain and not something entirely different. We are fortunate in this country to have a public service which, to a very large extent, has been free of corruption. Any evidence of wrongdoing which has emerged relates to a very small number of individuals whose conduct is in marked contrast to the contributions made by the thousands of public servants who, over the decades since the foundation of the state, have served in many different capacities with honesty and integrity in the public interest. Of course, there is no room for complacency and we must be firm in our resolve to deal effectively with those who, by their actions or inactions, would undermine the fundamental principles on which our democracy is founded. It is somewhat ironic, and a cause of regret, that the approach we have adopted whereby past difficulties are dealt with in a very public manner, as is the case with the various tribunals, has led to criticism of our systems of governance. Such criticism is not, in the main, supported by the facts which, in my view, would show that the integrity of the decision making process has not been impugned.

It will be seen that 2002 was an extremely challenging first year for the newly formed Standards Commission. It was necessary to ensure that procedures were in place to give effect to the provisions contained in the Standards Act. It was also necessary to devise structures for dealing with matters arising under the Electoral Acts relating to the Dáil and Seanad general elections. The Dáil election was the first ever general election to take place under the full regulation of the Electoral Acts in regard to election spending and donations.

The key objective of the Standards Commission, in its supervision of both the Ethics and Electoral Acts, is to provide an information, guidance and advice service to its clients. The Standards Commission regards it as a vital element of the duty entrusted in it by the Oireachtas to ensure that all of its clients are fully aware of their duties and responsibilities and that the advice given and guidelines published are comprehensive, accurate and meaningful. In circumstances of non-compliance, the Standards Commission will, where it is appropriate, utilise its powers of investigation under the Ethics Acts and its powers of referral to the Director of Public Prosecutions where there has been a contravention of the Electoral Acts. The client base of the Standards Commission now extends to members of both Houses of the Oireachtas, including office holders, members of the European Parliament, senior civil servants, directors and executives in more than 100 semi-state companies, ministerial special advisers, political parties, candidates and their election agents at Dáil, Seanad, European Parliament and presidential elections, accounting units of political parties and third parties who are involved in political activity.

The establishment of the Standards Commission, and its predecessor, the Public Offices Commission, and the enactment of the legislation referred to above was part of a concerted and wide ranging response to a demand for greater transparency in public life. Other important elements include 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. No doubt, as time goes on, further refinement and expansion of the laws and procedures on ethics and electoral matters will become necessary. Above all else, the fundamentals of leadership and encouragement from the very highest levels of the public service will continue to be critical in ensuring that the standards of behaviour we have come to expect in the public service are maintained and that the citizens of this country can have confidence that the public interest will take precedence over the personal interests of individual public servants.

I wish to pay tribute to my fellow Commissioners who have been a tremendous support to me in my first year as Chairman and have served with great dedication and enthusiasm. I also wish to pay tribute to the former Public Offices Commission which initiated the regulatory frameworks and did so much valuable work in setting the foundations for the supervision of the Ethics and Electoral Acts.

Finally, I would like to thank the Standards Commission Secretary, Mr. Brian Allen, and his excellent staff for their continued commitment and hard work during the year. The range of tasks to be performed by the Standards Commission is now so wide that it would be impossible for it to discharge all of its statutory obligations in a timely and effective manner were it not for the tremendous assistance afforded to it by the Secretariat.

Back to contents