Strengthening public scrutiny

I have often had occasion to lament the fact that we lack the necessary legal framework to investigate corruption and abuse. Undoubtedly, over the years various allegations have been made in this sense, directed at various sectors of the administration, but I dare say this has been to no avail and no political accountability has ever been acknowledged.

Back in the 1980s the then Nationalist Opposition had emphasised the need to have more scrutiny and transparency in the public sector and had duly promised immediate remedial action. Once returned to government the newly elected Nationalists did pilot a law creating the so-called Tribunal for the Investigation of Corruption. As a point of interest this new tribunal was launched early in 1988 amid much fanfair and promise. There were great expectations for this new quasi-judicial authority and perhaps this new legal mechanism did indeed have a good start. In the first few years of its existence numerous and varied reports were presented before it. Very soon, however, it became all too apparent that this innovative authority would prove to be a disappointment. Many started gradually to consider that it had perhaps evolved to play the demeaning role of a smoke screen for the government and to almost legitimise the failings of the executive.

Over the years I have taken it in my stride to keep an eye on the performance of this tribunal and I find it opportune to comment on my findings.

Statistics have shown that between 1988 and 1994, 243 reports were filed claiming acts of corruption. It seems, however, that after the initial enthusiasm the public started to cool to this authority. From 1995 to date the number of applications filed has gone down drastically and the more time that passes the fewer allegations of corruption are referred to it. Thus we see that in the last 15 years only 135 reports were filed, while in 2008 and 2009 only five. If this doesn't indicate a total lack of faith in this institution by the public at large, then nothing else could.

What is most worrying, however, is the fact - and this results from replies given to me by the minister concerned - that in the past 10 years or so and notwithstanding the furore and hype made regarding allegations of rampant irregularities and corruption, the watchdog did not manage to find fault against the government on even a single occasion. This is dumbfounding to say the least.

It transpires that to date there are only two pending cases left to be investigated and determined. This entitles me to comment that this authority has indeed rendered itself totally redundant and insignificant, notwithstanding that from a fiscal point of view it retains its relevance. The authority is composed of three members including a chairman. The remuneration of the chairman is around €17,500 a year while that of the members is of almost €9,500, thereby costing our exchequer around €36,500 annually. Together with this figure must be added the fact that the chairman enjoys the service of a free telephone, free newspapers and the use of a driver. To keep the tribunal going there is the added expense of the salaries of the secretary and two messengers apart from other ancillary expenses.

Thus it would not be too far off the mark to state that this tribunal is costing us around €60,000 a year. Today, amazingly, it will cost the state €30,000 to investigate each of the two remaining cases and this is ludicrous. The time is therefore surely ripe to revamp the way we are supposedly deterring abuse.

The Labour Party way back had come up with the idea of endowing a pool of enquiring magistrates with the necessary power and means to ex-officio curb corruption, a system akin to that prevailing in other European countries but a proposal that this present administration, for obvious reasons, has shrunk away from.

Through the grape vine, it has also come to my attention that far from strengthening the judicial organ in this regard, amendments are in the offing which will continue to curb the last vestiges of authority that our enquiring magistrates still enjoy in terms of public scrutiny.

At present, if one has reason to think that an illegality has occurred one can personally make such a claim before the duty magistrate. It would then be up to this magistrate, after giving due thought and consideration to the issue, to decide whether he should initiate an inquiry.

This discretion is to be shortly undermined and to my mind this will be a sad day for the independence of our judiciary.

In the light of all this, even taking account of my position as Shadow Minister for Justice, I will surely find time to make recommendations both internally within my party and even to Parliament aimed at strengthening our judiciary's role in matters concerning public trust.