Annual Report of the

Public Offices Commission

1999

Tuarascáil Bhliantúil
An Choimisiúin Um Oifigí Poiblí
1999
© Government of Ireland
© Rialtas na hÉireann

Public Offices Commission

18 Lower Leeson Street
Dublin 2

Coimisiún um Oifigí Poiblí

18 Sráid Líosain Íochtarach
Baile Átha Cliath 2

Tel: (01) 6785222

Fax: (01) 6395684
email/ríomhphost: poc@ombudsman.irlgov.ie
Internet/Idirlíon: http://www.irlgov.ie/poc
Foreword Brollach

I hereby present the Annual Report of the Public Déanaim leis seo Tuarascáil Bhliantúil an Choimisiúin
Offices Commission for 1999 to the Minister for um Oifigí Poiblí don bhliain 1999 a thíolacadh don Aire
Finance pursuant to the provisions of section 27(2)(a) Airgeadais de bhun fhorálacha alt 27(2)(a) den Acht
of the Ethics in Public Office Act, 1995. um Eitic in Oifigí Poiblí, 1995.

Kevin Murphy
Chairman/Cathaoirleach
June 2000/Meitheamh 2000
Public Offices Commission
Coimisiún um Oifigí Poiblí

John Purcell Kieran Coughlan Séamus Pattison, Kevin Murphy Deirdre Lane
Comptroller and Clerk of the Dáil T.D. Ombudsman Clerk of the Seanad
Auditor General Ceann Comhairle (Chairman)

Ard-Reachtaire Cléireach na Dála (Cathaoirleach) Cléireach an tSeanad

Cúntas agus Ciste
Tá leagan Gaeilge den Tuarascáil seo
ar fáil ag tosnú ar Leathanach 45.
contents
Introduction 2

Part 1 - Ethics in Public Office Act, 1995 6

- The operation of the Ethics Act during 1999 8

- Complaints to the Commission - general 11
- Complaints received by the Commission in 1999 12
- Resignation of a special adviser 13

Part 2 - Electoral Acts, 1997 and 1998 20

- Donations received by TDs, Senators and MEPs disclosed in 1999 22

- Donations received by political parties disclosed in 1999 23
- European Parliament election of 11 June 1999 27
- Dublin South-Central Dáil bye-election of 27 October 1999 33
- Exchequer funding of political parties 34

Appendices 38
1

- Appendix 1 Costs in 1999 38

- Appendix 2 Statements of interests furnished by Designated Directors 39
- Appendix 3 ‘Nil’ statement of interests forms 40
 Introduction

This is the fourth Annual Report of the Public

Offices Commission (the Commission) since its
establishment in November 1995.

Because of the continuing work of the

Moriarty and Flood Tribunals of Inquiry and
other events during the course of the year,
including the Public Accounts Committee
hearings into matters relating to Deposit
Interest Retention Tax, questions concerning
2
ethics in public life remained centre stage
during 1999. As in 1998, public debate was
again focused on the need to ensure that rules
are in place setting out in clear terms the
standards expected to be observed by
politicians and others in discharging their
public service functions and, just as
importantly, that compliance with these rules,
both in the spirit and the letter, is being
supervised and reported on where necessary.

Most systems which seek to guide the ethical

conduct of those engaged in the public service
rely on self-assessment on the part of
individuals and assume that disclosure
requirements and other compliance measures
will be honestly observed. However, to ensure
credibility, such systems are open to public
scrutiny; there is provision for complaints to be
made which will be independently examined
and for appropriate sanctions where breaches
of the rules are substantiated. Underlying
 3

...disclosure requirements
and other compliance
measures will be honestly
observed.
 these systems is the fundamental principle that those
who are involved in the public service should discharge
their functions exclusively in the public interest without
regard to their own personal interests. Where breaches
do occur, they may vary from those which are
essentially technical to those involving serious conflicts
between personal and public interests. The laws
governing behaviour and the sanctions for
contraventions must reflect that reality and must
provide sufficient flexibility so that the consequences of
unacceptable actions, including inaction, can be fairly
weighed and dealt with in a manner which is balanced
and which reflects the gravity of a particular situation.
Any serious observer of the various scandals which
have emerged over the last decade in Irish life, whether
in the political arena, taxation, business and
commercial life or in social and health matters, would
undoubtedly find the connecting thread between them
all as lack of transparency, resistance to openness and
failures in accountability. The exposure, particularly by
4
the media, of these scandals, while clearly in the public
interest, has tended to overshadow the significant
legislative developments which have occurred in recent
times in the area of openness and accountability. The
Ethics in Public Office Act, 1995, the Electoral Acts,
1997 and 1998, the Freedom of Information Act,
1997, the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas
(Compellability, Privileges and Immunities of Witnesses)
Act, 1997, and the Public Service Management Act,
1997, are all very important pieces of legislation. The
combined effects of these Acts will, in the
Commission’s view, contribute significantly, over time,
to the development among politicians and public
servants, in their dealings with business, with other
important groups in Irish life and with the public
generally, of standards of behaviour which should be
beyond reproach.
The Commission, in discharging its mandate under the
Ethics in Public Office Act, 1995 and the Electoral Acts,
1997 and 1998 has also contributed to the
development of higher standards. These are two very
important pieces of legislation providing, as they do, a
framework within which Government, the legislature,
the public sector generally and those who seek elective
office must abide by certain norms of behaviour,
whether in the discharge of their public service
functions or as participants in the electoral process.
The Acts have been operating successfully not merely
as instruments of sanction but, much more importantly,
as benchmarks for behavioural standards. The extent
to which observance of the requirements of the
legislation is being achieved is a matter of public record
through publications such as this Annual Report and
other reports by the Commission which have been laid
before the Houses of the Oireachtas. Unfortunately,
the concentration of the public debate on events which
occurred before the passing of this legislation and the
establishment of the Commission has tended to
diminish what has been achieved and to result in a lack
of recognition of the changes which have taken place.
In supervising the Ethics and Electoral Acts, the
Commission has, subject to the requirements of the
legislation, sought to be pragmatic, consistent and fair
in relating to its large body of clients which includes
Ministers and other office holders, TDs, Senators,
MEPs, political parties, Ministerial special advisers,
senior civil servants, directors and executives of more
than one hundred state-sponsored bodies and
candidates, agents and others who are engaged in
Dáil, Seanad, Presidential and European Parliament
election campaigns. The remit of the Commission has
not, to date, been extended to members or employees
of local authorities and health boards or to local
election campaigns. In making its decisions, the
Commission has been, and will continue to be,
primarily concerned with maintaining the authority and
reputation of the Commission as an independent
statutory body.
The Commission is satisfied that present practice in
Ireland compares well with that in other countries and,
indeed, many countries are at present looking to the
Irish model with interest. However, no legislation is set
in stone and the Commission has already made a
number of suggestions aimed at correcting what it
considered were deficiencies in the legislation. As
outlined in last year’s Annual Report, some of these
suggestions were reflected in the Electoral
(Amendment) Act, 1998; others were put to the Joint
Oireachtas Committee on Finance and the Public
Service when it was considering the Government’s
proposals for a Standards in Public Office Bill. A
number are also raised in this report because they
became relevant to cases considered by the
Commission during 1999.

The Commission would like to thank its Secretary Mr.

Brian Allen and his staff for the support and assistance
which they have continued to provide during the
course of the year. The demands which are placed
upon them are many and varied and they deserve the
highest commendation for the efficient and effective
manner in which they have discharged their duties.

5
 Part 1

Ethics in Public Office Act, 1995

The Ethics in Public Office Act, 1995 is based on

the premise that parliamentarians and public
servants should make decisions based on the
merits of an issue alone and not as a result of
pressure or inducements or influence from
external sources or because of their own or
their family’s personal interests. The Ethics Act
tries to ensure transparency in relation to
matters which might influence the performance
of official functions by requiring statements of
personal interests, including gifts received from
6
third parties. In fulfilling their obligations
under the Act, those persons to whom it applies
are supported by the publication of statutorily
binding guidelines and the availability of
advice. They are regulated, in the case of office
holders and public servants, by monitoring and,
where appropriate, by investigation by the
Commission.

Under the Ethics Act, members of both the Dáil

and Seanad, including office holders, disclose
their interests in the form of annual statements
covering eight categories of registrable
interests as prescribed by the Act. These
statements are furnished to the Clerk of the
appropriate House and are the basis for the
establishment of the annual Registers of
Members’ Interests. The Registers are laid
before the relevant House and are published in
Iris Oifigiúil. For office holders, there is a
further requirement to provide an annual
statement of the interests (under the same
eight categories as mentioned above) of a
spouse or child which could materially influence
the office holder in relation to the performance
 7

...parliamentarians and
public servants should make
decisions based on the
merits of an issue alone...
 of the functions of his or her office. These statements
of additional interests, which are not published, are
retained by both the relevant Clerk and the
Commission.
The public servants who are covered by the Ethics Act
are required to provide an annual statement of their
own registrable interests and those of a spouse or child
which could materially influence them in relation to the
performance of their official functions. Interests are
deemed to be capable of material influence where the
performance of an official function could so affect
those interests as to confer on, or withhold from, the
person, or the spouse or child, a substantial benefit.
The statements of special advisers to Ministers are
provided to the Commission and are laid before both
Houses of the Oireachtas. All other statements from
persons in the executive offices of Government and
State are held by the public bodies concerned and, in
the case of directors of state-sponsored bodies, also by
the Commission. Statements furnished by office
holders and public servants are retained and are
8 available to the Commission for a period of fifteen
years.
Initially, many of the specific requirements of the Ethics
Act were seen by some as irksome and an invasion of
privacy. Recent events, however, are leading to a
greater understanding of the importance of an ethics
code and of the need for those at the top levels of the
public service to promote and maintain a high standard
of ethical behaviour among all who are engaged in
public service. There is also a greater appreciation of
the need for and the role of an independent regulatory
body to enforce those requirements and to provide
advice and consultation on the ethical dimension of the
conduct of public office. In a world of competing
interests and increasing interaction between business
and public life, an ethics regime can be viewed not only
as a means by which those in public service can regain
the respect of the general public but also as a means by
which individuals holding public office can be guided
and protected against false accusations.
It is, however, important, in the Commission’s view,
that the backlash against those in public service, which
understandably may arise as a result of the revelations
at the Tribunals of Inquiry, does not result in a code
which is so excessively technical that it may hinder
rather than support the main objective of ensuring
acceptance of and commitment to the fundamental
principle of honesty in public life. It is important that
legislation in this area strikes the appropriate balance
between the necessary level of monitoring and control
and the individual’s right to privacy and good name.
The degree of supervision should not, as may have
happened in some other countries, become part of the
problem. Ethics regimes generally should not be seen
as a collection of reactive rules designed to punish
unsuspecting participants but rather as a set of
parameters designed to foster an open, accountable
environment which, of itself, encourages a self-directed
ethical approach to public service. Perhaps the most
important requirement of all is that those who are in
charge in the public service - be they Ministers or
Secretaries General of Departments, leaders of political
parties, City and County Managers, Chief Executives of
state-sponsored bodies - should demonstrate by their
actions and decisions their commitment to good and
honest governance and their determination to deal
severely with those who impugn the integrity of the
decision making process.
The operation of the Ethics Act
during 1999
Scope of the Ethics Act
The Ethics Act, which applies directly to members of
the Houses of the Oireachtas, to specified office
holders (e.g. Ministers and Ministers of State) and to
special advisers to Ministers, is extended to civil
servants and directors and executives of state-
sponsored bodies by means of regulations made by the
Minister for Finance. The current regulations, which
specify the public bodies and prescribe directorships
and positions within those bodies for the purposes of
the Ethics Act, have been in place since early 1997.
Given the extent of change since then in the public
sector, where many new public bodies have been
established and bodies previously covered by the
regulations have been privatised, amalgamated,
renamed or otherwise changed (including titles of
executive positions), the regulations appear to be
deficient in a number of respects. It is understood that
the Department of Finance has made substantial
progress towards updating and consolidating the
regulations. However, the process of change will
continue. In those circumstances, it might be better if
Government decided that where new legislation
establishing or reorganising a public body is
introduced, it should include a provision which would
have the effect of immediately applying the Ethics Act
to the body in question if the body fell into the broad
categories covered by the present regulations. It is
anticipated that the remit of the Ethics Act in relation
to public bodies will increase substantially over the next
year or so and the Commission is likely to require
additional resources to provide assistance and advice to
those coming within the scope of the Act for the first
time.
The Ethics Act and the Freedom of
Information Act
The Freedom of Information Act, 1997 came into
operation on 21 April 1998 for a range of public bodies
including the Commission. The Freedom of Information
Act gave the general public and corporate bodies the
right:
to access information held by public bodies;
to have personal information relating to themselves
held by public bodies amended where it is
incomplete, incorrect or misleading;
to be given reasons for decisions made by public
bodies which affect them.
The Freedom of Information Act, generally, supports
the right of access to official information to the
greatest extent possible with due respect to the public
interest and the individual’s right to privacy. As a body
prescribed for the purposes of the Freedom of
Information Act, the Commission has, as is required,
published a reference booklet which informs the public
of its structure, of the nature of the documentation
held and of the process by which requests for
information can be made. A member of the
Commission’s Secretariat has been designated as
Freedom of Information Officer for the Commission.
The Ethics Act contains a prohibition on the disclosure
of information obtained under the Act or by being
present at a sitting of the Commission held in private.
This prohibition obviously does not apply to the
Registers of Members’ Interests which are laid before
each House of the Oireachtas and published in Iris
Oifigiúil. Neither does it apply to statements of
interests furnished by special advisers to Ministers and
other material relating to persons in that category
which, in accordance with the Ethics Act, is laid before
each House.
The Freedom of Information Act provides that a head
of an organisation shall refuse to grant a request for
access to records if the disclosure of the record
concerned is prohibited by any enactment other than a
provision expressly specified in the Freedom of
Information Act. The prohibition on disclosure
contained in the Ethics Act is not specified in the
Freedom of Information Act and, therefore, is not
affected by the Freedom of Information Act.
The Ethics Act prohibition on disclosure of information,
which is absolute to the extent that an offence attaches
to any contravention of the prohibition, is lifted only in
very specific circumstances as follows: 9
(i) where information is disclosed in the public interest
by a Minister of the Government; or
(ii) where the person who has statutory custody of a
statement of interests under the Ethics Act is of the
opinion that the information is such as to show
that a conflict may exist between an interest
specified in the statement, or an undisclosed
interest, and the public interest.
In relation to (ii) above, disclosure of information may
occur as follows:
a statement furnished by an office holder could be
provided to such Minister of the Government, as
the custodian of the statement considered
appropriate;
a statement of a designated director of a
prescribed public body could be provided to other
directors of, or persons occupying designated
positions in, that public body, as the custodian of
the statement considered appropriate;
a statement of a person occupying a designated
position in a prescribed public body could be
 provided to directors of, or other persons
occupying designated positions in, that public
body, as the custodian of the statement considered
appropriate; or
a statement of a special adviser could be provided
to such person as the custodian of the statement
considered appropriate.
(Note: The “custodian of the statement” could be the
Commission, one or other of the Clerks of the Houses
of the Oireachtas or a “relevant authority” in a public
body as, for example, in the case of senior civil
servants, the Secretary General (Public Service
Management and Development) in the Department of
Finance.)
Additionally, the exemption from absolute prohibition
on disclosure extends to a person who would disclose
information:
in the performance of his or her functions;
in the public interest, to a Minister of the
10 Government, to the Secretary General to the
Government, to the Committee on Members’
Interests of the Dáil or Seanad, to the Commission
or to a “relevant authority” in a public body;
pursuant to an order of a court; or
with the consent of the person to whom the
information relates in a case where the report of an
investigation by the Commission or a Committee
on Members’ Interests has not been laid before
either House.
Determination of the public interest consideration
attaching to statements provided under the Ethics Act
is assigned by the legislation to those persons to whom
statements are statutorily furnished. In other words,
total responsibility for decisions relating to the release
of information contained in statements is assigned by
the Ethics Act to the custodians of those statements.
Definition of a “friend”
The Ethics Act, in dealing with gifts to Ministers and
Ministers of State and certain other office holders,
provides exemption from disclosure or possible
surrender to the State (or the making of an appropriate
refund) by the recipient, where the benefactor is a
“relative” or a “friend” of the office holder. Neither of
these terms is defined in the Act. The exemption is
repeated in the guidelines for office holders published
by the Government and also applies, in relation to
disclosure, to other categories of persons including
members of the Houses of the Oireachtas who are
covered by the Act. A decision on whether or not
persons are relatives is normally a reasonably
straightforward matter. It is considerably more difficult,
however, to make a determination as to what
constitutes a friend. In its examination of complaints
received during the year (which are discussed later in
this report), alleging contravention of the Ethics Act on
the part of two Ministers, the Commission found that
the absence of a statutory definition of a friend was a
complicating factor in dealing with the complaints.
The Commission had earlier, in December 1998,
conveyed its views on foreseen difficulties in this area
to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance and the
Public Service to whom draft proposals for a Standards
in Public Office Bill had been referred for consideration.
That Committee has since published its report.
The Commission is conscious of the difficulty in
attempting to construct a definition of what
constitutes a friend. It may be that a solution will have
to be found by setting out, in legislation, parameters
within which a claim to friendship will have to be
supported by the person who is relying on the
existence of a friendship. If the matter is not resolved
it will remain the position that the value threshold of
£500, which determines whether the Ethics Act applies
or does not apply to receipt of a gift, is effectively
redundant where a friend is the benefactor. There is
currently no specific provision in the Ethics Act allowing
for arbitration where it is held out that the benefactor
of a gift is a friend. In contrast, there is provision
whereby the Secretary General to the Government may
be called upon to determine both the value of a gift
and the question of whether a gift is given to an office
holder by virtue of his or her office.
Having regard to the fact that the Ethics Act is founded
on the concept of openness, of which disclosure to
public scrutiny is an essential element, it seems to the
Commission that even the appearance of a conflict of
interests is at odds with the spirit of the Act and that,
in the absence of a reliable and objective definition,
there may be a case for removing friends entirely from
the exemption category. Alternatively, and bearing in
mind that long-standing friendships should not be
prejudiced because one party assumes public office,
consideration might be given to applying a higher value
threshold when dealing with a gift from a friend or to
excluding from exemption a gift from a friend where
the friend is also involved in a business or other activity
which is, or could be, affected by decisions of the office
holder either in his or her own Department or as a
member of Government.
Definition of a “connected person”
This matter also was brought to the attention of the
Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service by
the Commission in December 1998 when the
proposals for a Standards in Public Office Bill were
under consideration. The term “connected person” is
used in the Ethics Act to deal with situations where an
office holder or a public servant could, in making a
decision or performing a function, cause a specific
benefit to accrue to themselves and/or to a person who
is connected to them. This is deemed by the Act to
constitute a material interest in a matter and, in such
cases, a statement of the facts and of the nature of the
interest must be provided. As currently defined, a
connected person means a relative or a person or
company with whom an office holder or public servant
has a trustee or formal business relationship.
The Commission, based on its experience, would not
regard this definition as sufficiently inclusive and feels
that it should be extended to any person who has
given, or agreed to give, a gift for personal reasons in
the previous three or so years or who has, during that
period, bestowed, or agreed to bestow, advantage,
economic or otherwise, on an office holder or public
servant who is covered by the Ethics Act.
Complaints to the Commission
- general
The Ethics Act includes provisions for the making of
complaints where it is considered that a contravention
of the Act may have occurred. Complaints are directed
to the Committees on Members’ Interests where they
involve TDs and Senators and to the Commission in the
case of office holders and public servants.
In the context of the Ethics Act, the term “office
holder”, as currently designated, means:
a Minister of the Government or a Minister of
State;
a TD or Senator who holds the office of Attorney
General;
the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Dáil
Éireann; and
the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Seanad
Éireann.
The term “public servant”, as currently prescribed for
the purpose of a complaint, means:
a person who occupies or occupied a designated
position in a Government Department or Office;
a person who holds or held a designated
directorship of a specified public body in the wider 11
public service;
a person who occupies or occupied a designated
position in a specified public body in the wider
public service; and
a person who is or was a special adviser assigned to
a Minister or a Minister of State.
In the case of a complaint about a TD or Senator, where
the complainant was not a member of either House,
the complaint would be made to the Clerk of the
appropriate House. If the Clerk was of the opinion that
the complaint was not frivolous or vexatious, it would
be forwarded for examination to the Committee on
Members’ Interests of the House. If the complainant
was a TD or Senator and the complaint was about
another TD or Senator, it would be made directly to the
Committee of the House of which the subject of the
complaint was a member.
The following table illustrates the route by which a
person would make a complaint to the Commission
regarding an office holder or public servant where it is
alleged that a contravention of the Ethics Act had
occurred.
 Complaints to the Commission

Who can complain? About whom? To whom is the complaint addressed?

A member of the public An office holder, The Clerk of the Dáil

e.g. Minister or Minister of State (if the office holder is a TD)*
The Clerk of the Seanad
(if the office holder is a Senator)*

A TD or Senator A public servant The Public Offices Commission

An office holder

The Minister for Finance A public servant The Public Offices Commission

Any Minister A public servant in a body where The Public Offices Commission
(with the consent of the the Minister has charge or has
Minister for Finance) functions conferred on him/her

A specified public body A designated director of the body The Public Offices Commission
A person in a designated position
in the body

The “appropriate authority” A civil servant in the body The Public Offices Commission
12
in certain civil service bodies

* A complaint is considered by the Clerk. Where the Clerk is of the opinion that a complaint is not frivolous or vexatious,
it is referred to the Commission.

Complaints received by the The Commission considered the complaints primarily in

Commission in 1999
During 1999 the Commission received complaints under
the Ethics Act from two private citizens. The complaints,
which related to the holiday arrangements in August
1999 of Ms. Mary Harney, TD, Tánaiste and Minister for
Enterprise, Trade and Employment, and Mr. Charlie
McCreevy, TD, Minister for Finance, were referred to the
Commission by the Clerk of the Dáil in accordance with
the procedure outlined in the table above. In essence,
the complaints centred on a view that the office holders
in question should not have accepted hospitality, in the
form of holiday accommodation in France, from a
person whose company, at the time or potentially, had
considerable business interests with the State and that,
in accepting the hospitality, the office holders had
contravened certain provisions of the Ethics Act and of
the Government Guidelines which were published
thereunder.
the context of three sections of the Act, i.e. section 15
which sets out how gifts to office holders are to be
treated; section 5 and the Second Schedule which deal
with statements of registrable interests and section 14
which is relevant to circumstances where office holders
are required to disclose any material interest they, or a
connected person, might have in the performance of
certain functions of their office.
The Commission’s consideration took particular
account of the following:
the estimate of the value of the holiday
accommodation which, according to details
provided to the Commission by the office holders,
exceeded the threshold of £500 specified in the
Ethics Act by a relatively small amount;
the provision in subsection (4)(b) of section 15 that
Government Guidelines in relation to gifts to office
holders do not apply to a loan of property supplied
by a friend for personal reasons only. The
Commission was not aware of, or provided with,
any evidence to refute the statements, made to the
Commission by both office holders, that the
accommodation was provided by a friend and for
personal reasons only;
the provision in paragraph 1(6)(b) of the Second
Schedule to the effect that the term “registrable
interest” does not include living accommodation
supplied by a friend where it was in the nature of a
gift given for personal reasons only, unless
acceptance might reasonably be seen to have been
capable of influencing the person in the
performance of his or her functions as an office
holder. The office holders in this case had each
informed the Commission of their intention to
voluntarily disclose the holiday accommodation as
a gift in their annual statements of registrable
interests, although they did not necessarily regard
acceptance of the accommodation as being a
registrable interest. The Commission advised the
office holders, bearing in mind the general public
reaction, media coverage, debate in Dáil Éireann
and the receipt of complaints, that acceptance of
the accommodation might reasonably be seen to
have been capable of influencing them in the
performance of their functions, including their
functions as members of the Government, and
was, therefore, a registrable interest. Both office
holders were advised that, as a registrable interest,
disclosure would be required to the Clerk of the
Dáil in their statements of registrable interests for
the registration year ending 31 January 2000; and
the requirement in section 14 of the Ethics Act that
an office holder should disclose a material interest
in the performance of a function is activated in
circumstances where the office holder has actual
knowledge that he or she, or a connected person,
has a material interest in the office holder’s
performance or decision (i.e. would stand to
benefit significantly and specially from the effect or
consequence). In the absence of any evidence to
the contrary, the Commission accepted the
statements of each office holder that section 14 of
the Act did not apply because neither they, nor any
connected person, as defined in the Act, had a
material interest in any decision made, or proposed
to be made, by either office holder, or by the
Government, affecting the provider of the
accommodation.
In light of the foregoing, the Commission decided that
it would not be appropriate to carry out a formal
investigation under the Act. However, in its
examination of the matter, it was conscious of the
principles underlying the ethics legislation, in particular,
the intention to improve public confidence in the
integrity of office holders and the decision-making
process in Government and the public service. In its
letters to the office holders, the Commission drew
attention to observations it had already conveyed, in
December 1998, to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on
Finance and the Public Service during the course of that
Committee’s consideration of Government proposals
for a Standards in Public Office Bill. These
observations, some of which are outlined earlier in this
report, included the suggestion that consideration be
given to extending the definition of “connected 13
person” in the Act and a view on the need to establish
some parameters in relation to gifts from “friends”,
particularly those friends who, either personally or
whose companies, have, or might have, significant
business interests with the State. In making these
points to the office holders, the Commission
acknowledged that the Act ought not, and was never
intended to, interfere with long-standing relationships
between office holders and personal friends.
Resignation of a special
adviser
In early June 1999 the Commission became aware,
through media reports initially, that circumstances
existed which appeared to have implications relating to
compliance with the Ethics Act. The reports concerned
Mr. Paddy Duffy, a special adviser at the Office of the
Taoiseach, who was found to be registered as a director
of Dillon Consultants Ltd., a public relations company
which had advised the telecommunications group NTL
on its successful bid to buy Cablelink from two State
companies in May 1999. Mr. Duffy resigned from his
special adviser post on 4 June 1999, the day of the
initial media reports. The obligations under the Ethics
 Act attaching to a special adviser and the employing
office holder are contained in section 19 of the Act.
Mr. Duffy was covered by the Act since his
appointment to the Office of the Taoiseach on 26 June
1997. His obligations under the Act were threefold:
to provide, to the Taoiseach and the Commission,
on an annual basis, a statement of any registrable
interests of his own or of a spouse or child, of
which he had actual knowledge, which could
materially influence him in the performance of his
functions as a special adviser;
where, at any time, a function as a special adviser
fell to be performed by him and he had actual
knowledge that he, or a connected person, had a
material interest in a matter to which the function
related, to provide to both the Taoiseach and the
Commission a statement in writing of the facts of
that interest. (He would also have been prohibited
from performing the function unless there were
compelling reasons requiring him to do so. If he
14 proposed to perform the function, he would be
required to provide both the Taoiseach and the
Commission with a statement in writing of the
compelling reasons.); and
to undertake not to engage in any trade,
profession, vocation or other occupation which
could reasonably be seen to be capable of
interfering or being incompatible with the
performance of his functions as a special adviser.
As the employing office holder, the Taoiseach was
obliged to lay certain documents pertaining to Mr.
Duffy’s employment before each House of the
Oireachtas, i.e.
a copy of the contract , or a statement in writing of
the terms and conditions, under which Mr. Duffy
acted as a special adviser;
a statement as to whether Mr. Duffy was a relative
of the Taoiseach;
a copy of the annual statement of interests
provided by Mr. Duffy; and
a statement of the qualifications held by Mr. Duffy
which were relevant to his functions as a special
adviser.
The Commission published guidelines in February 1996
which provide details of the steps which are required to
be taken by special advisers in order to comply with the
requirements of the legislation. These steps are also set
out in the Commission’s guidelines for office holders.
Additionally, where persons are unsure about the
meaning of any particular provision of the legislation,
or its application, they can avail of an advice facility
which is provided by the Commission pursuant to
section 25(1)(b) of the Ethics Act.
Compliance by the special adviser
Under the Ethics Act, the Commission is a body
nominated to receive and consider statements of
interests of certain categories of persons coming within
the scope of the Act, i.e. office holders, special advisers
and directors of state-sponsored bodies. In
circumstances where a complaint alleging a
contravention of the Act is made, or referred, to the
Commission, or where the Commission decides of its
own volition that it would be appropriate to initiate an
investigation, the investigative process would, in the
normal course, commence with an examination by the
Commission of any statement of interests furnished by
the person in question in relation to the period under
investigation.
As is the case with other public servants, a special
adviser who has no registrable interests to disclose is
not legally required to furnish what would be a ‘nil’
statement. The Commission has, however, expressed a
preference towards the furnishing of such a ‘nil’
statement, rather than the non-furnishing of any
statement, so that a person can demonstrate that he or
she has considered his or her position under the Ethics
Act and is satisfied that there are no interests which
could materially influence the person in the
performance of his or her public service functions.
Mr. Duffy furnished statements of interests under
section 19 of the Ethics Act for the registration years
ending on 31 January 1998 and 31 January 1999.
Both of these were ‘nil’ statements. On 8 June 1999,
four days after his resignation as a special adviser, Mr.
Duffy notified the Commission for the first time that he
was registered as a non-executive director of Dillon
Consultants Ltd. in December 1998.
Consideration by the Commission
The Commission, having carried out a preliminary
examination based on the facts available, decided that
the circumstances of the case were such as to warrant
further more detailed consideration, including the
possibility of a formal investigation being carried out
under the Ethics Act. On 14 July 1999 the Commission
notified Mr. Duffy of the legal obligations attaching to
him as a special adviser and requested his comments
on the matter of his compliance with those
requirements. Mr. Duffy was informed that the
Commission was considering whether or not it would
be appropriate to carry out an investigation and that, in
arriving at a conclusion, account would be taken of the
following :
On 2 March 1999 the Commission received from
him a statement of interests in respect of the
registration period 1 February 1998 to 31 January
1999 confirming that he had no registrable
interests during that period.
On 8 June 1999 he notified the Commission that
he was registered as a non-executive director of
Dillon Consultants Ltd. in December 1998.
On 16 June 1999 in response to a letter to him from
the Commission dated 9 June 1999 which
requested detailed clarification of his relationship
with Dillon Consultants Ltd., the Commission
received a letter from him acknowledging that while
he was unaware of any listing as a director of Dillon
Consultants Ltd., he was so listed from December
1998 to January 1999. The letter went on to state
that no discussions or actions of any sort were
undertaken by him with any office holder relating to
any public sector business in which Dillon
Consultants Ltd. had any involvement at any time.
In the course of his statement to the Dáil on 16
June 1999 the Taoiseach confirmed that Mr. Duffy
was made a director of Dillon Consultants Ltd. on
9 December 1998 with effect from that date, on
the basis that he would take up employment early
in the New Year. The Taoiseach went on to say that
part of the deal was that Mr. Duffy would take up
a five percent share in the company and that the
relevant forms with Mr. Duffy’s signature were
subsequently lodged in the Companies Office on
12 March 1999.
Dillon Consultants Ltd. acted as consultants to NTL
in relation to their successful bid to purchase
Cablelink.
The Commission suggested to Mr. Duffy that, on the
basis of the foregoing, it appeared that he may have
failed to comply with his obligations under the Ethics
Act and may have contravened Part IV of the Act. In
order to determine whether it should undertake an
investigation, the Commission requested Mr. Duffy to
provide his comments in writing.
Mr. Duffy’s response to the Commission included the
following :
He cited the essence of the controversy which
caused him to resign from his special adviser
position as being the allegation made by an
Opposition Deputy that he was a director of Dillon
Consultants Ltd. (which managed the affairs of NTL
in applying for the purchase of Cablelink) and that,
in exercising such an improper dual role, he
influenced the outcome of the bid. He rejected this 15
allegation as completely unfounded.
He stated that he signed a document in December
1998 which would make him a non-executive
director of the company, if, having considered the
matter over the Christmas period, he decided to
leave the position he held as special adviser and
enter the private sector. Immediately after
Christmas he informed the company that he was
not taking up the offer but would probably do so
at the end of 1999. As far as he was concerned,
they (the company) knew exactly what he meant
and the proposal was not to be proceeded with.
He believed that his signature on the share
document was neither a definitive nor operational
acceptance of a position but, rather, a conditional
offer to be considered.
He knew nothing about the registration of his
name as a director; about a brochure including him
as a team-member (of Dillon Consultants Ltd.)
which was produced and distributed on behalf of
the company or about a Website which included
him as a full-time working member of the
company. He was never given sight of any such
 documents; he never profited in any way from such
unauthorised publicity and, if he had known, he
would have taken steps immediately to rectify the
situation. With regard to declarations of interests,
he argued that he could not declare something he
knew nothing about.
He stated that, as it turned out, the company had
no role whatsoever in the application, evaluation or
approval of NTL for the purchase of Cablelink. This
was decided, according to the highest standards of
public probity, by an international firm appointed
by the Minister. He played no role either in any
matter pertaining to that issue.
Mr. Duffy concluded by acknowledging that the
affixation of a personal signature is a serious act
which should be undertaken with much more care
and diligence than he exercised in the case, albeit,
in his view, in an agreed, honest and understood
manner. Mr. Duffy stated that he regrets that
singular lapse of judgement because of which he
16 had resigned his position as special adviser.
Evaluation by the Commission
The Commission took the view that Mr. Duffy’s actions,
relative to section 19 of the Ethics Act, fell short of
compliance in three areas:
(1) Section 19(3)(a)(i)
Under section 19(3)(a)(i), he did not declare, to the
Taoiseach and the Commission, a registrable interest
(Second Schedule, Item 3 - a directorship or shadow
directorship of any company held by the person
concerned at any time during the appropriate period*
aforesaid or Second Schedule, Item 7 - a
remunerated position held by the person concerned as
a political or public affairs lobbyist, consultant or
adviser during the appropriate period* aforesaid)
which seems to have had the potential to materially
influence him in relation to the performance of his
functions as a special adviser by reason of the fact that
such performance could so affect those interests as to
confer on, or withhold from, the person a substantial
benefit.
(*from 1 February 1998 to 31 January 1999)
Mr Duffy’s relationship with Dillon Consultants Ltd. was
dealt with in detail by the Taoiseach in a Dáil statement
on 16 June 1999. In this statement, the Taoiseach also
clarified the role of both Mr. Duffy and Dillon
Consultants Ltd. in relation to the business activities of
NTL. He went on to deal with Mr. Duffy’s role as a
member of the National Millennium Committee and its
consideration of an application from the Gaiety Theatre
for funding. Dillon Consultants Ltd. had acted on
behalf of the Theatre. The Taoiseach expressed the
view that “there is a potential for conflict of interest
where a person is adjudicating on, and maybe backing,
a proposal on its own merits but which is, nonetheless,
being promoted by a firm with which he expects to
have a future contractual relationship”.
(2) Section 19(3)(a)(ii)
In any case where a function falls to be performed by a
special adviser and the adviser has knowledge that he
or she has a material interest in a matter to which the
function relates, the adviser, under section 19(3)(a)(ii)
of the Ethics Act, is required to notify the office holder
and the Commission in writing of those facts, decline
the performance of the functions unless there are
compelling reasons to do so and, if the latter situation
prevails, notify the office holder and the Commission of
the compelling reasons. There was no such notification
from Mr. Duffy. The Ethics Act is structured in such a
way that there is no presumed relationship between
the furnishing of an annual statement of interests and
the necessity to furnish a statement at any time during
a year where it arises that there is a material interest in
a function falling to be performed. In other words, it
could happen that in furnishing an annual statement
in, say, early March 1998 covering the period 1
February 1997 to 31 January 1998, a special adviser
would reasonably take the view that there were no
registrable or additional interests to declare. However,
in, say, June 1998, circumstances could arise requiring
the immediate disclosure of the existence of a material
interest in a matter to which a function as special
adviser relates. It would not meet the requirements of
the Ethics Act to defer making such a disclosure until
the next annual statement was due. In fact, even if the
interest had been declared in the annual statement of
the previous year, it would still be necessary to make a
further disclosure at the time the circumstance arose.
The Commission considers that compliance with this
requirement is particularly important in the case of
special advisers who may be seconded to their posts
from business or consulting firms which may have, or
may be seeking, business with public bodies.
(3) Section 19(3)(a)(iii)
Under section 19(3)(a)(iii), Mr. Duffy was required to
undertake not to engage in any trade, profession,
vocation or other occupation, whether remunerated or
otherwise, which might reasonably be seen to be
capable of interfering or being incompatible with the
performance of his functions as a special adviser.
The need to comply with this provision, and the other
provisions of section 19(3) referred to above, would not
seem to have been dependent on Mr. Duffy having a
formal contract of employment as a special adviser
which, from the Taoiseach’s Dáil statement on 16 June
1999, it is known he did not have. This assumption is
based on section 19(6) which provides that the terms
on which a special adviser occupies the excluded
position or is employed under the contract for services
shall be deemed to include a term that the person shall
comply with section 19(3).
Again the Commission would stress the need to ensure
clear lines of demarcation when special advisers are
performing functions which may interact with the
activities of firms from which they are seconded or in
which their long term career interests may lie.
The process of investigation
While it was clear to the Commission, from its
correspondence with Mr. Duffy and from the
Taoiseach’s Dáil statement, that both the parties
accepted that there had been breaches of the Ethics
Act (albeit, in Mr. Duffy’s view, inadvertently), the
Commission was not in a position to determine that
there had been a contravention without carrying out a
formal investigation under the Act. The investigation
process is set out in detail in the Act. Effectively the
Commission operates as a tribunal of inquiry holding
hearings (which may be in private) and interrogating
witnesses who may have legal representation. It was
clear to the Commission that such a process would
require the Commission to employ its own legal
representatives and that the process would not only be
time-consuming but could involve considerable
Exchequer expenditure. The Commission, therefore,
considered what would likely be achieved by
embarking on this process.
If the Commission was to carry out an investigation in
this case the ensuing report would be furnished to Mr.
Duffy and to the Taoiseach. The report would set out
the findings of the Commission together with its
determinations in relation to whether there had been a
contravention of Part IV of the Ethics Act and whether
it was continuing. If the Commission decided that
there had been a contravention, there are four
secondary levels of determination which the report
would also have had to deal with, i.e.
it would have to prescribe, in the case of an
ongoing contravention, the steps and the timescale
required to secure compliance with the Act;
it would have to determine whether the 17
contravention was committed inadvertently,
negligently, recklessly or intentionally;
it would have to indicate whether the
contravention was, in all the circumstances, a
serious or a minor matter;
it would have to indicate whether Mr. Duffy acted
in good faith and in the belief that the action was
in accordance with guidelines published or advice
given, in writing, by the Commission. (Mr. Duffy
had not, on any occasion since his assumption of a
special adviser position, approached the
Commission for advice.)
If the occurrence of a serious contravention was
determined by the Commission, it would be necessary
to lay the investigation report before both Houses
where it could be noted. The application of the
sanctions, provided for under the Ethics Act, involving
censure or suspension by a House when such a report
is laid is, logically, confined to members of the Houses
(including office holders). The Act does not set out the
potential consequences of the Commission having
determined that a serious contravention had occurred
 in the case of a person in the special adviser category.
That would appear to be a matter exclusively for the
office holder where the person concerned was his or
her special adviser. Mr. Duffy no longer held a special
adviser position, the loss of which would have been the
maximum direct penalty he could suffer arising from a
critical investigation report by the Commission. If, in
the course of an investigation, the Commission came
to the view that an offence (as distinct from a
contravention of the Ethics Act) may have been
committed, the investigation would be suspended and
the papers sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The Commission considered the position carefully and
decided, on balance, that it would not be appropriate,
in all of the circumstances of the case, to carry out an
investigation. It was made clear by the Commission
that the decision not to conduct an investigation ought
not be interpreted as a finding that no contravention of
the Ethics Act had taken place. In its formal
notifications to the parties directly involved, the
Commission commented on the issues which had been
18 raised by the case. The comments included reference
to the importance of isolating private from public
function; to ensuring that sufficient information is
made available within public service bodies to persons
who have obligations under the Ethics Act; to the role
played by Ministers in completing the disclosure
requirements relating to special advisers and to the
overall responsibility attaching to the Minister for
Finance for the effective operation of the legislation.
Correspondence arising from the case was made
available to the Minister for Finance. The Minister
subsequently confirmed to the Commission that the
issues raised were being examined in his Department in
the context of a code of conduct for civil servants and
a proposed Standards in Public Office Bill.
Compliance by the office holder
Material relating to Mr. Duffy, including his statements
of interests furnished under section 19 of the Ethics Act
for the registration years ended 31 January 1998 and
31 January 1999 was laid before the Houses of the
Oireachtas, by the Taoiseach, on 11 June 1999. While
the Act itself is silent on any time period within which
the material should be laid, the Minister for Finance has
adopted the practice of establishing a time limit. For
1999 that date was 31 March; all office holders were
informed of this date by letter from the Minister for
Finance in February 1999.
The Commission considered that the delay by the
Taoiseach, in not laying the material within a reasonable
period following its receipt, indicated a lack of attention
to a statutory duty and that, while it is recognised that
the absence of a statutory time limit removes the
possibility of a technical breach of the Act, the intention
of the legislature could reasonably be assumed to have
been that the material would be laid within a short
period following expiry of the registration year. The
Commission would not regard giving attention to this
matter as placing an undue burden on any
administration and would encourage the introduction
of simple procedures to ensure that the laying
requirements are properly adhered to in future.
Some issues arising
In the light of its consideration of this case, the
Commission wishes to draw attention to the following
issues:
whether or not more needs to be done to ensure
that special advisers and, indeed, career civil
servants are always conscious of the potential
conflicts which may arise where they are exercising
functions which impinge on the activities of firms
or companies with which they may have working
relationships at some future date;
the possibility of the Commission being enabled to
operate a preliminary examination process in
relation to complaints, or on its own initiative, and
to reach preliminary conclusions, with the formal
investigation process being initiated only where
these conclusions are disputed by any party or
where the Commission considers it would be
appropriate to have an investigation;
whether or not the investigation procedures laid
down in the Ethics Act should be reviewed. The
Commission set out its views on these procedures
in its submission to the Joint Committee on Finance
and the Public Service and in last year’s Annual
Report;
the desirability of extending the obligations of
office holders, when laying documents about
special advisers employed by them before each
House of the Oireachtas, to include details of any
continuing links with private sector employment,
even if unpaid.

19
 Part 2

Electoral Acts, 1997 and 1998

The 1999 calendar year was the first full year

when all of the provisions of the Electoral Act,
1997 and the Electoral (Amendment) Act, 1998
were in operation. The Commission’s Annual
Report for 1998 provided a description of the
main provisions of both pieces of legislation
and an outline of some of the reasons why it
was necessary to amend the 1997 Act.

In this part of the report, the position relating

to the disclosure in 1999 of political donations
20
received by TDs, Senators, MEPs and political
parties is examined. A number of related
issues are also discussed such as donations
received from outside the State, disclosure
requirements for certain types of donors and
the treatment of payments passing between
political parties and their members.

The European Parliament election in June 1999

was the first national election which was
subject to the new rules governing the
disclosure of donations and the limitation of
expenditure. The Commission’s views on the
operation of the legislation during that
election are set out. Of concern to the
Commission in regard to that election was an
apparent lack of attention on the part of some
candidates and agents in areas such as keeping
of adequate records and maintaining strict
control over expenditure.

Another event covered in this part of the

report is the Dáil bye-election in Dublin South-
Central which was held in October 1999. Also,
during the year, the Commission received, for
 ...an important aspect of the
legislation is the access it provides
to information...

21
 the first time, details of how Exchequer funding of over
£1m paid out to qualified political parties under the
Electoral Acts was spent by the parties. Payments
commenced in 1998 and a report on spending had to
be furnished to the Commission by each qualified party
not later than 31 March 1999.
It should be noted that the mandate of the
Commission under the Electoral Acts does not extend
to members of local authorities or health boards.
Accordingly, the Commission has no role in relation to
the disclosure of political donations received by such
persons nor was it involved in monitoring and reporting
on expenditure at the local elections held in June 1999.
Donations received by TDs,
Senators and MEPs disclosed
in 1999
The legislation requires TDs, Senators and MEPs to
furnish an annual Donation Statement to the
Commission disclosing any contributions received for
22 political purposes which exceed a value of £500. If the
same person makes more than one donation to the
same TD, Senator or MEP, the values of the donations
must be aggregated and disclosed if the total amount
exceeds £500. The annual Statement must be
provided by 31 January each year in respect of the
preceding calendar year. Donations cover money,
property, goods or services, and include items supplied
at below commercial cost. The penalty for failing to
furnish a Statement is a fine of up to £1,000. If the
failure continues after a conviction, there can be a
further fine of up to £100 per day until such time as the
Statement has been provided. If it is proven that a false
or misleading Statement has knowingly been furnished
to the Commission, the person concerned is liable to a
fine of up to £20,000 and imprisonment for up to 3
years.
Guidelines were issued by the Commission to TDs,
Senators and MEPs on the steps to be taken by them
concerning the disclosure of donations and the
treatment of anonymous donations. (Anonymous
donations are donations valued at more than £100
which are offered or received and the intended
recipient does not know the name and address of the
donor. Such donations must be refused or, if received,
must be surrendered to the Commission. It is an
offence to do otherwise.) The Commission’s guidelines
were revised to take account of the 1998 Act which
commenced on 31 March 1998. That Act introduced
two changes of significance for TDs, Senators and
MEPs :
(i) a donation made to a TD, Senator or MEP which is
passed on by the person to his or her political party
will be regarded as a donation to the party and not
to the person if a written acknowledgement of the
donation is received by the person from the party;
and
(ii) spending by the national agent of a political party on
its candidates at a Dáil or European Parliament
election will not be regarded as a donation to the
candidates unless it consists of money exceeding
£500. (Such spending must come from the amount
assigned by the candidate to the political party from
within the expenditure limit available to the
candidate and will, of course, be subject to the
spending limits now applying to elections. Spending
limits are discussed in more detail later in this report.)
Donation Statements
Donation Statements for 1998 were received by the
Commission from all 166 TDs, 60 Senators and 15
MEPs. These Statements were the first to be covered
by the provisions of both the 1997 and 1998 Acts and
were the first to cover a full calendar year. A summary
of the donations disclosed in the Statements is set out
in Table A.
The Statements, together with a report by the
Commission to the Ceann Comhairle, were laid before
the Dáil and Seanad. A Press Release was issued by the
Commission and notices were placed in national and
local newspapers advising that the Statements were
available for public inspection and copying at the
offices of the Commission. There was, however, a very
low level of uptake when it came to the public availing
of the invitation to inspect or copy the material. This is
unfortunate given that an important aspect of the
legislation is the access it provides to information
which, heretofore, was not open to public scrutiny. It
is disappointing that, notwithstanding the
understandably high level of interest in events in other
fora (which have been dealing with matters pre-dating
the current legislation) and the widespread debate
concerning donations to politicians, there appears to
be little interest in the factual information which is
being made available by the Commission on a regular
basis. This information, being on public display, affords
every citizen the right to consider and, if appropriate,
question and require an explanation in relation to any
aspect of the statutory Statements.
The total value of donations exceeding £500 which
were disclosed by members of the Dáil was £78,872.73
plus US$1,000. Members of Fianna Fáil accounted for
the largest portion of this amount with donations to
the value of £55,489.00 plus US$1,000 (71% of the
total). Members of Fine Gael and the Labour Party
disclosed totals of £12,983.73 (16%) and £10,400.00
(13%), respectively. The total value of donations
exceeding a value of £500 disclosed by members of the
Seanad for 1998 was just £2,000, comprising a
donation of £1,000 each disclosed by a member of
Fianna Fáil and a member of the Labour Party.

Donations with a total value of £80,872.73 plus

US$1,000 were disclosed as having been received
during 1998. It should be borne in mind that only
donations with a value exceeding the £500 threshold
are required to be disclosed. The category of persons
which disclosed most donations were members of the
Dáil. Eighteen TDs (10.8% of total members) disclosed
donations valued in excess of £500 as did two Senators
(3.3% of Senators). None of the fifteen Irish MEPs
disclosed donations. Fianna Fáil Deputies accounted
for the highest number of statements (ten) in which at
least one donation was disclosed, followed by the
Labour Party (five) and Fine Gael (three). There was no
disclosure by members of other political parties or by
independents.
Donations received by political
parties disclosed in 1999
The legislation requires the Appropriate Officer of each
registered political party (e.g. the General Secretary) to
furnish a Donation Statement to the Commission by 31
March of each year indicating whether, during the
preceding calendar year, the party received any
donations exceeding £4,000 in value, or donations
from the same person exceeding an aggregate value of 23
£4,000. The Appropriate Officer is personally
responsible for furnishing the Statement and for the
accuracy of the information contained therein. As with
individual TDs, Senators and MEPs, there are very
serious sanctions for failing to provide a Statement

Table A: Summary of donations received during 1998 disclosed by TDs,

Senators and MEPs

TDs Senators MEPs

Political Party Donations Nil Donations Nil Donations Nil

disclosed returns disclosed returns disclosed returns

Fianna Fáil 10 66 1 29 0 7
Fine Gael 3 51 0 16 0 4
Labour 5 14 1 3 0 1
Green Party 0 2 - - 0 2
Democratic Left 0 3 - - - -
Progressive Democrats 0 4 0 4 - -
Socialist Party 0 1 - - - -
Sinn Féin 0 1 - - - -
Non-Party 0 6 0 6 0 1
TOTALS 18 148 2 58 0 15
 and, more particularly, for knowingly providing a
Statement that is false or misleading.
The annual Donation Statements of political parties
covering the period from 1 January to 31 December
1998 were furnished to the Commission by the
statutory deadline of 31 March 1999. Guidelines on
the disclosure requirements had been sent by the
Commission to the sixteen political parties registered in
the State to contest a Dáil or European Parliament
election. All of these parties were covered by the
legislation. (The number reduced to fifteen in late
January 1999 due to the merger of Democratic Left
and the Labour Party.)
Donation Statements
Donation Statements were received by the Commission
from all of the sixteen registered parties. The Donation
Statements for 1998 are the first party returns to be
covered by the full provisions of both the 1997 and
1998 Acts and are the first such returns to cover a
Eight of the sixteen political parties disclosed donations
valued in excess of £4,000 which were received during
the period in question. Fianna Fáil disclosed the
highest number of such donations, thirty-six, and the
highest total value of donations, £432,501. The largest
donations received by that party (two donations of
£50,000 each) were from Mr. Martin Naughton of
Slane, County Meath, and from O’Callaghan Hotels of
Cumberland Street in Dublin 2. Fine Gael disclosed the
second highest number of donations, five, valued at a
total of £63,528.
The largest single donation, US $184,256.09, was one
of a number received by Sinn Féin from ‘Friends of Sinn
Féin America’. In this regard, to ensure compliance
with the legislation, the Commission sought and
received confirmation from Sinn Féin that the
donations from ‘Friends of Sinn Féin America’ did not
include any individual donations valued in excess of
£4,000. Apart from the ‘Friends of Sinn Féin America’
contribution to Sinn Féin, the largest disclosed
contributor to political parties during 1998 was Irish

24 complete calendar year. A summary of the information Life Ltd. which made five donations with a total value
contained in the Statements is provided in Table B. of £80,000. These were distributed amongst Fianna

Table B: Summary of donations received during 1998 disclosed by

political parties
Political Amount Received Number of Largest donation
Party £ donations £
Fianna Fáil 432,501 36 50,000
Sinn Féin 24,750 + 3 US$184,256.09
US$256,208
Fine Gael 63,528 5 25,000
Labour Party 51,741 3a 27,741
Green Party 13,080 2 6,540
Socialist Party 12,000 1 12,000
Progressive Democrats 5,000 1 5,000
Democratic Left 5,000 1b 5,000
Christian Solidarity Party Nil - -
Communist Party of Ireland Nil - -
Muintir na hÉireann Nil - -
National Party Nil - -
Natural Law Party Nil - -
Socialist Workers Party Nil - -
South Kerry Independent Alliance Nil - -
Workers Party Nil - -
a Two of these donations were included in a supplementary Donation Statement, received on 3 August 1999
b This donation was included in a supplementary Donation Statement, received on 11 May 1999
Fáil (£35,000), Fine Gael (£25,000), the Labour Party
(£10,000), the Progressive Democrats (£5,000) and
Democratic Left (£5,000).
The Labour Party disclosed that its donation from Irish
Life Ltd. was given on the understanding that the
money would be used exclusively for the campaign to
promote the Northern Ireland Good Friday Agreement.
The Appropriate Officer of the party confirmed in the
Donation Statement that the money was used for this
purpose. Fianna Fáil also disclosed that twenty of its
donations, with a total value of £379,000, were given
in respect of the campaign in relation to the Northern
Ireland Peace Agreement.
Copies of the Donation Statements received from the
parties were laid by the Commission before each House
of the Oireachtas and are available for public inspection
at the offices of the Commission. A public notice to
this effect was placed by the Commission in the
national and local newspapers.
Donations received from outside the State
Unlike the position in a number of other jurisdictions,
the receipt of donations from outside the State by Irish
political parties and public representatives is not
prohibited by the legislation governing the disclosure
of donations. The Commission is satisfied that parties
in receipt of such donations have established
procedures which will ensure that they are accounted
for in accordance with the requirements of the
legislation. The Commission has made it clear that, in
terms of disclosure by parties, there is no difference
between donations received from either within or
outside the State. In any case where a donation valued
at more than £4,000 is made to a party, the
Commission would expect to be given full details of the
donation, including the name and address of the donor
and the value and nature of the donation, regardless of
the location of the donor. In that regard, Appropriate
Officers should be fully aware of their responsibilities
and should ensure that they are in possession of all
relevant information concerning donations when
completing the party’s Donation Statement. It would
be unacceptable to the Commission that a donation
would, perhaps inadvertently, be omitted from a
Statement because an Appropriate Officer did not have
all of the facts. This could arise, for instance, where
information about fund-raising events abroad was not
made available to the Appropriate Officer in sufficient
time or detail for inclusion in the Statement.
Disclosure requirements for certain categories
of donors
The 1998 Act introduced a new disclosure requirement
for certain categories of donors (i.e. a donor who is not
a company, trade union, building society or other
society, as described in the legislation) who made
donations exceeding an aggregate value of £4,000 in a
calendar year in either of the following circumstances:
(i) to two or more persons who, when the donations
were made, were members of the same political
party; or
(ii) to one or more persons and to the political party of
which the person(s) were members when the
donations were made to them.
25
Such donations must be detailed in a Donation
Statement furnished to the Commission by the donor,
regardless of whether the donations in question are
also required to be disclosed by the recipient. In this
regard, the 1998 Act prohibits the acceptance of a
donation where the intended recipient knows or has
reason to believe that the donor in question does not
intend to comply with the requirement to furnish a
Donation Statement to the Commission.
The new requirement was notified by the Commission
to all of the registered political parties during 1998.
The first Donation Statements from donors were
required to be furnished to the Commission by 31
January 1999 in respect of the period from 31 March
(commencement of the 1998 Act) to 31 December
1998. The Commission placed public notices in the
national and provincial newspapers informing donors
of this requirement. The Commission did not receive
any Statements from donors in respect of 1998.
Democratic Left Supplementary Donation
Statement for 1998
On 5 May 1999 the Appropriate Officer of Democratic
 Left informed the Commission of an error in the party’s
1998 Donation Statement. A donation of £5,000 from
Irish Life Ltd. which had been received by the party
during 1998 had been omitted from the Donation
Statement. A supplementary Donation Statement
disclosing the donation was subsequently received by
the Commission on 11 May 1999.
The party’s Appropriate Officer advised the
Commission that the omission from the original
submission arose due to an administrative error. The
Appropriate Officer was no longer employed by the
party after January 1999 when the party ceased to exist
as a separate entity. For the purpose of completing the
party’s Donation Statement, the Appropriate Officer
had requested a check on party income for 1998.
Records were mistakenly checked for donations valued
in excess of £5,000 rather than the statutory disclosure
threshold of £4,000. On that basis, the Appropriate
Officer was advised that there were no disclosable
donations received by Democratic Left during the
period in question.
26
The Commission considered the matter and accepted
the explanation given by the Appropriate Officer. It
was decided that the Appropriate Officer had not
contravened the Acts by knowingly furnishing a
Donation Statement which was false or misleading in a
material respect. The Commission advised the
Appropriate Officer that the requirements under
section 24(6) of the 1997 Act to make such enquiries
and maintain such records as are necessary for the
purpose of furnishing a Donation Statement and
making the accompanying Statutory Declaration
should be strictly adhered to in future, i.e. in relation to
the 1999 Donation Statement which would cover the
period up to 24 January 1999.
The above instance, where a political party
inadvertently omitted from its Donation Statement the
only disclosable donation received by it during a
calendar year, is indicative of a lack of sufficient care
and attention being afforded to the completion of
statutory documentation as referred to in the
introduction to this part of the report. It is a matter of
concern to the Commission that this situation, which
was brought about by a misunderstanding of the
statutory disclosure limit, could have arisen some two
years after the commencement of the legislation.
Labour Party Supplementary Donation
Statements for 1997 and 1998
Following publication of the political party Donation
Statements for 1998, the Commission was aware of
media coverage suggesting that the Labour Party had
failed to disclose, in its 1997 and 1998 Statements,
amounts in excess of £4,000 which had been received
by the party from former MEP, Ms. Bernie Malone.
In response to the Commission’s enquiries in the
matter, the Appropriate Officer of the party confirmed
that levies to the party had been paid by Ms. Malone in
1997 and 1998. Some £9,100 was paid between 15
May 1997 (commencement of the 1997 Act) and 31
December 1997. A further £14,000 was paid from 1
January 1998 to 31 December 1998. In addition,
subscription fees of £27,741 had been paid to the
party by an affiliated trade union (SIPTU) in February
1998.
The Appropriate Officer contended that levies paid by
Ms. Malone and the fees paid by SIPTU were not of a
discretionary nature because they were paid in
compliance with the rules of party membership and, as
such, they should not be regarded as donations to the
party, as defined under the legislation.
The Commission considered the comments of the
Appropriate Officer and was strongly of the view,
supported by legal advice, that the payments in
question did constitute donations to the party, as
defined in section 22 of the 1997 Act, and should have
been disclosed in the party’s Donation Statements for
1997 and 1998. In arriving at this conclusion the
Commission had regard to the terms of the legislation
which describe a donation as meaning any contribution
given for political purposes by any person, whether or
not the person is a member of a political party. A
person is described as including an individual, a body
corporate or an unincorporated body of persons.
The Commission did not consider that the Appropriate
Officer had knowingly furnished a false or misleading
Donation Statement. The Appropriate Officer was,
however, requested to furnish supplementary Donation
Statements for 1997 and 1998, detailing the donations
from Ms. Malone and SIPTU. He was informed that the
Commission’s advice should be sought where there is
any doubt regarding what might constitute a donation.
Supplementary Donation Statements received from the
Labour Party on 3 August 1999 were laid before the
Houses of the Oireachtas and made available for public
inspection.
In general, receipt by a political party of levies on party
members or subscriptions from associated bodies must
be disclosed by the party if the amount in any case
exceeds the threshold of £4,000 during a calendar year.
The fact that the payment of such levies and
subscriptions may not be discretionary does not
absolve a political party from its disclosure
responsibilities. In this regard, levies include annual
levies and any other payments (such as pre-election
payments to a constituency organisation or branch)
requested by a political party from its members,
whether or not they are public representatives.
Officials of political parties and members of those
parties are reminded that the advice of the Commission
should be sought if there is any doubt about the
treatment of a particular transaction.
Payments between a political party and its
members
The issue of payments passing between a political party
and its members often leads to enquiries to the
Commission. As outlined above, the definition of a
donation under the legislation does not exclude
contributions made to a party by members or affiliates,
whether discretionary or not. Equally, contributions
made to a member by a party will be regarded as a
donation to the member if the value exceeds the £500
threshold. Loans made by a party to its members may
also constitute donations, unless the recipient of a loan
can show that the transaction was a bona fide loan and
that it has been, or will be, repaid to the party.
Expenses incurred by a political party on behalf of its
candidates at a Dáil or European Parliament election
are excluded from the definition of a donation (unless
such expenditure takes the form of cash payments to
the candidate exceeding £500 which would be
regarded as a donation to the candidate). Similarly,
where a Dáil or European Parliament election candidate
receives a refund of election expenditure from the
Exchequer, the refund, or a part thereof, may be used
by the candidate to reimburse a political party in
respect of expenditure incurred by the party on behalf
of the candidate at the election. The reimbursement
will not be regarded as a donation to the party, where
the reimbursement was agreed in writing prior to the
election and the sum involved does not exceed the
amount agreed or the amount of expenses actually
incurred by the party on the candidate, whichever is
the lesser. This treatment of reimbursements has been
notified by the Commission to all registered political
parties. In determining the position in this regard, the
Commission took account of the fact that in calculating
the amount of the refund which a candidate is entitled
to receive, the legislation permits the inclusion of
expenditure incurred by the political party on behalf of
the candidate at the election but does not afford any
right to the party itself to seek the refund.
27
The Commission is statutorily obliged to provide advice
and guidelines to persons to whom the legislation
applies. While the Commission seeks to produce
comprehensive guidelines, it may be the case that the
guidelines will not cover all eventualities. The onus,
therefore, is on a person furnishing a Donation
Statement to seek the Commission’s advice where
there is any doubt regarding what constitutes a
donation.
European Parliament election
of 11 June 1999
The European Parliament election of 11 June 1999 was
the first national election where participants were
subject to the disclosure of donations and the
limitation of expenditure. The election was also the
first contest at European level which was subject to
those provisions of the legislation.
Expenditure limits and procedures for the
reimbursement of candidates’ expenses at a European
Parliament election are not set out in the legislation.
Accordingly, an Order (The Electoral Act, 1997 (Section
33) Order, 1999) was made by the Minister for the
 Environment and Local Government on 5 May 1999
setting the expenditure limit for the election at
£150,000 per candidate. Regulations introduced by
the Minister on the same day (European Parliament
Election (Reimbursement of Expenses) Regulations)
provided for a maximum reimbursement to candidates
of £30,000 in respect of election expenses. This was
available to candidates who were either elected or
secured at least one-quarter of the quota in their
constituency.
Commission contact with candidates, election
agents and political parties
Forty-two candidates and eight political parties
contested the European Parliament election in four
constituencies (Tables C to F below). The Commission
published guidelines entitled: ‘Handbook for the
European Parliament Election on 11 June 1999’, which
were issued to each candidate, their election agents
and the national agents of the political parties.
28 Representatives of the Commission visited each of the
four constituencies during the election campaign.
Constituency visits are a feature of the Commission’s
activities during election campaigns and they have
proven valuable in developing an understanding of the
legislative requirements amongst candidates, election
agents and party officials. Advice and assistance are
provided by the Commission representatives in an
informal manner which helps to construct good
working relationships with candidates and political
parties, greatly aiding the operation of the legislation
both before and after an election. The Commission has
signalled its intention to political parties that it will
continue these constituency visits at future elections in
addition to providing more formal briefing sessions at
national or regional levels. A number of political
parties attended briefing sessions at the Commission’s
offices prior to the European Parliament election and
these briefings will act as a model for future
developments in this area.
Material furnished to the Commission
The Commission also conducted post-election
constituency visits to ensure, as far as possible, a
correct and speedy completion of the various statutory
forms and to facilitate the prompt processing of
applications from candidates seeking reimbursement of
election expenses. The Commission is disappointed
and concerned at the number of errors and omissions
which were a feature of the statutory documentation
initially furnished by most candidates and agents. This
documentation covered matters such as the disclosure
of donations by unsuccessful candidates, the disclosure
and limitation of election expenditure by agents of
candidates and political parties and the reimbursement
of candidates’ election expenses.
The Commission was obliged to enter into
correspondence, which was occasionally protracted,
with many of the candidates and agents to ensure
correct completion of the statutory documentation,
particularly Election Expenses Statements. A number
of meetings, over and above what should reasonably
have been required, were also necessary to bring the
process to finality. It is evident that, in many cases,
sufficient care was not taken both in advance and
when actually completing the statutory forms. In
particular, it was clear that the requirement to maintain
proper records and invoices relating to election
expenses was not properly adhered to by some of the
participants. It should be noted that failure to maintain
proper records for the purposes of furnishing an
Election Expenses Statement is an offence under the
legislation. It should not be expected that the
Commission, at future elections, will go to the same
lengths in terms of time and commitment in
attempting to assist candidates and agents to
discharge their statutory responsibilities.
On a more positive note, the European Parliament
election was the first electoral contest covered by the
legislation where there was, eventually, a complete
return of all statutory documentation to the Commission
and where the Commission did not find it necessary to
refer a file to either the Gardaí or the Office of the
Director of Public Prosecutions. At previous elections,
files relating to a number of candidates and agents who,
at least initially, had failed to furnish Donation
Statements or Election Expenses Statements or who had
overspent at an election were transmitted by the
Commission to the Gardaí or the Office of the Director
of Public Prosecutions for attention.
It was apparent to the Commission that, in some cases,
difficulties arose in furnishing the statutory
documentation because of a delay or failure on the
part of candidates in providing their election agents
with information which was required by the agents to
fulfil their responsibilities under the Electoral Acts. In
one instance, failure by a candidate to provide the
relevant information to an election agent resulted in
that agent not being able to fully complete the relevant
Election Expenses Statement to the satisfaction of the
Commission until almost six months after the statutory
deadline. At present there is no sanction in the
legislation dealing with failure by a candidate to
provide relevant information to an election agent, a
point which the Commission has already brought to
the attention of the Department of the Environment
and Local Government.
On a final note, the Commission would like to draw
attention to the fact that failure to comply with the
relevant procedures, including the maintenance of
proper records, delays the making of reimbursements
of election expenses to qualified candidates and, in
serious cases including long delays, may result in the
refusal of a reimbursement application. The only
person who can legally incur expenditure on behalf of
an election candidate is the candidate’s election agent
and persons authorised by that agent within specific
limits. Only if a candidate acts as his or her own
election agent, or is authorised by an agent, can he or
she incur election expenditure under the legislation. In
any other circumstances, a candidate should not have
control over records or other material connected to
election expenditure.
Analysis of election expenditure at the
European Parliament election
An analysis of the Election Expenses Statements received
by the Commission in relation to the forty-two
candidates and the eight political parties who contested
the election (Tables C to G below) shows that
expenditure of £2,192,585.71 was incurred at the
election. Overall, the forty-two candidates themselves
incurred expenditure of £1,337,979.93 while political
parties spent a further £741,547.08 directly on their
candidates. In addition to spending on their candidates,
political parties also spent £113,058.70 at national level
(Table G). This latter expenditure was not specific to any
particular candidate or constituency.
On a constituency basis, the largest amount spent was in
Dublin, £792,676.64, followed by Munster,
£494,777.19, Connacht/Ulster, £407,398.28, and
Leinster £384,674.90. The highest expenditure incurred
by a political party and its candidates was by Fianna Fáil
at £701,772.18, followed by Fine Gael at £663,605.89
and the Labour Party at £350,739.66. At individual
candidate level, the highest expenditure by a party and
candidate combined was on Mr. Ben Briscoe, TD,
(Dublin) at £133,181.53, followed by Mr. Jim Mitchell,
TD, (Dublin) at £133,102.93, Ms. Mary Banotti, MEP,
(Dublin) at £111,460.69, Ms. Bernie Malone (Dublin) at
£100,167.18 and Mr. Proinsias De Rossa, TD and MEP,
(Dublin) at £100,008.75. Expenditure in respect of all
forty-two election candidates remained within the
statutory limit of £150,000 per candidate for each of the
European Parliament constituencies.
29
Reimbursement of election expenditure
A total of £833,744.00 was reimbursed to twenty-
eight candidates who were either elected at the
election or who secured at least one-quarter of the
quota in their constituency at any stage of the counting
of votes. Details of amounts reimbursed to qualified
candidates are also provided in Tables C to F below.
The largest amount of expenditure (£240,000) was
reimbursed to candidates in Dublin followed by
Leinster (£207,778.82), Munster (£206,519.70) and
Connacht/Ulster (£179,445.48).
All of the Fianna Fáil candidates (8 = £240,000), Fine
Gael candidates (7 = £210,000) and Sinn Féin
candidates (4 = £113,744) who contested the election
received a reimbursement of their expenses. Four of
the 5 Labour Party candidates (£120,000) and 2 of the
3 Green Party candidates (£60,000) also received
reimbursements as did three independent candidates,
Mr. Pat Cox, MEP, Ms. Marian Harkin and Ms. Dana
Rosemary Scallon, MEP.
 Table C: European Parliament election expenditure by political parties and
candidates in Dublin (13 candidates)
Candidate Name Candidate Party Spend Total Spend Reimbursed
(Political Party) Spend on Candidate Expenses
£ £ £ £
Niall Andrews MEP (FF) 36,678.31 31,194.71 67,873.02 30,000.00
Ben Briscoe TD (FF) 101,930.99 31,250.54 133,181.53 30,000.00
Mary Banotti MEP (FG) 34,459.27 77,001.42 111,460.69 30,000.00
Jim Mitchell TD (FG) 56,955.49 76,147.44 133,102.93 30,000.00
Proinnsias De Rossa TD and MEP (Lab) 60,154.50 39,854.25 100,008.75 30,000.00
Bernie Malone (Lab) 60,448.55 39,718.63 100,167.18 30,000.00
Patricia McKenna MEP (GP) 36,914.85 0 36,914.85 30,000.00
Seán Crowe (SF) 28,158.22 11,007.30 39,165.52 30,000.00
John Burns (NLP) 239.79 0 239.79 Not qualified
Gerard Casey (CSP) 0 41,953.20 41,953.20 Not qualified
Joe Higgins TD (SP) 0 16,089.99 16,089.99 Not qualified
Adam Goodwin (Ind) 4,326.19 N/A 4,326.19 Not qualified
Ciaran Goulding (Ind) 8,193.00 N/A 8,193.00 Not qualified
TOTALS 428,459.16 364,217.48 792,676.64 240,000.00

Table D: European Parliament election expenditure by political parties

30 and candidates in Leinster (8 candidates)
Candidate Name Candidate Party Spend Total Spend Reimbursed
(Political Party) Spend on Candidate Expenses
£ £ £ £
Jim Fitzsimons MEP (FF) 48,948.00 21,327.45 70,275.45 30,000.00
Liam Hyland MEP (FF) 18,037.69 22,090.58 40,128.27 30,000.00
Avril Doyle Senator and MEP (FG) 52,356.67 26,790.07 79,146.74 30,000.00
Alan Gillis (FG) 51,471.16 27,817.64 79,288.80 30,000.00
Seán Butler (Lab) 14,785.05 40,433.24 55,218.29 30,000.00
Nuala Ahern MEP (GP) 32,693.53 0 32,693.53 30,000.00
Arthur Morgan (SF) 17,123.56 10,655.26 27,778.82 27,778.82
Des Garrett (NLP) 145.00 0 145.00 Not qualified
TOTALS 235,560.66 149,114.24 384,674.90 207,778.82
Table E: European Parliament election expenditure by political parties and
candidates in Munster (10 candidates)
Candidate Name Candidate Party Spend Total Spend Reimbursed
(Political Party) Spend on Candidate Expenses
£ £ £ £
Gerard Collins MEP (FF) 61,011.00 22,116.93 83,127.93 30,000.00
Brian Crowley MEP (FF) 72,313.18 22,116.92 94,430.10 30,000.00
Jim Corr (FG) 63,078.84 21,003.35 84,082.19 30,000.00
John Cushnahan MEP (FG) 49,454.74 21,109.74 70,564.48 30,000.00
Paula Desmond (Lab) 18,428.26 34,259.62 52,687.88 30,000.00
Ben Nutty (GP) 743.52 750.00 1,493.52 Not qualified
Martin Ferris (SF) 15,864.44 10,655.26 26,519.70 26,519.70
Stewart Luck (NLP) 408.10 0 408.10 Not qualified
Denis Riordan (Ind) 240.00 N/A 240.00 Not qualified
Pat Cox MEP (Ind) 81,223.29 N/A 81,223.29 30,000.00
TOTALS 362,765.37 132,011.82 494,777.19 206,519.70

Table F: European Parliament election expenditure by political parties and

candidates in Connacht/Ulster (11 Candidates)
Candidate Name Candidate Party Spend Total Spend Reimbursed
(Political Party) Spend on Candidate Expenses
£ £ £ £ 31
Pat Gallagher MEP (FF) 36,020.20 20,922.42 56,942.62 30,000.00
Noel Treacy TD (FF) 67,274.32 21,181.81 88,456.13 30,000.00
Joe McCartin MEP (FG) 54,007.97 16,536.79 70,544.76 30,000.00
Gerard Gibbons (Lab) 14,930.30 26,907.26 41,837.56 Not qualified
Seán Mac Manus (SF) 18,790.22 10,655.26 29,445.48 29,445.48
Paul Campbell (NLP) 328.14 0 328.14 Not qualified
Marian Harkin (Ind) 52,990.16 N/A 52,990.16 30,000.00
Dana Rosemary Scallon MEP (Ind) 56,289.01 N/A 56,289.01 30,000.00
Rev Liam Sharkey (Ind) 6,112.66 N/A 6,112.66 Not qualified
Paul Raymond (Ind) 3,451.76 N/A 3,451.76 Not qualified
Luke Flanagan (Ind) 1,000.00 N/A 1,000.00 Not qualified
TOTALS 311,194.74 96,203.54 407,398.28 179,445.48

Table G: European Parliament election expenditure by political parties at

national level

Political Party No. of candidates Expenditure incurred £

Fianna Fáil 8 67,357.13
Fine Gael 7 35,415.30
Labour Party 5 820.00
Green Party 3 0
Sinn Féin 4 8,968.13
Natural Law Party 4 498.14
Socialist Party 1 0
Christian Solidarity Party 1 0
Non-Party 9 Not Applicable
TOTALS 42 113,058.70
 Expenditure by persons unconnected with
candidates or political parties
The legislation provides that notice of intention to incur
expenditure at an election by a person, or a group of
persons, unconnected to either a candidate or a
political party contesting the election must be provided
to the Commission in advance and the expenditure
must be accounted for to the Commission after the
election in an Election Expenses Statement. The
expenditure in question may be to either promote or
oppose a candidate or a political party at the election.
The Commission placed public notices to that effect in
the national and provincial newspapers prior to the
European Parliament election.
The European Parliament election was the first
occasion when expenditure was disclosed by third
parties who were unconnected to either a candidate or
a political party contesting the election. According to
Election Expenses Statements received by the
Commission, expenditure of £1,058.95 was incurred
32 by Mr. Jay Nolan on behalf of the Immigration Control
Platform in opposing the candidacy of Mr. Proinsias De
Rossa, TD and MEP, in Dublin. Mr. James O’Brien, Head
of the European Parliament Office in Dublin, also
incurred expenditure of £12,831 on behalf of that
office on a newspaper campaign to raise public
awareness of the election. This campaign consisted of
advertisements for the eight political parties (each of
which included a party message and a profile of party
candidates) and the independent candidates
contesting the election.
If future Irish elections follow the pattern of elections in
other jurisdictions where there are limits on election
expenditure, expenditure by organisations unconnected
to either a candidate or a political party contesting an
election will become more commonplace. The
Commission has advised candidates and political parties
that they should notify the Commission if they become
aware of unconnected third parties incurring
expenditure either promoting or opposing a candidate
or a political party at an election. Expenditure of this
nature during an election, including advertisements or
notices in newspapers or other periodical publications,
is expressly prohibited by the legislation, unless the
person or body incurring the expenditure has secured a
certificate from the Commission stating that the
Commission has been provided with prior details of the
proposed expenditure. If the Commission forms the
view that such expenditure is, in reality, being incurred
with the knowledge or approval or at the behest of a
candidate or party, it will be regarded as being part of
the expenditure limits applying to the party or
candidate.
Disclosure of donations
Donation Statements were received by the Commission
from each of the twenty-seven unsuccessful candidates
who contested the European Parliament election. Only
twelve of these disclosed donations valued in excess of
£500 which were received in relation to the election.
The total value of donations disclosed was
£127,798.04. Details of donations disclosed are
provided in Table H below. The Commission was not
notified of receipt of an anonymous donation by any of
the election candidates.
The fifteen successful candidates are required to
furnish an annual Donation Statement, as sitting MEPs,
by 31 January of each year in respect of the preceding
calendar year. Three former MEPs, who either did not
seek re-election or were unsuccessful at the election
(Mr. Mark Killilea, Mr. Alan Gillis and Ms. Bernie
Malone), are required to furnish a Donation Statement
covering the period 1 January to 10 June 2000.
Public availability of statutory documentation
Copies of the Donation Statements, Election Expenses
Statements and a report by the Commission to the
Ceann Comhairle were laid before both Houses of the
Oireachtas on 7 October 1999, in accordance with the
requirements of the legislation. Copies of an amended
Election Expenses Statement from Mr. John O’Dwyer,
election agent for Minister of State, Mr. Noel Treacy,
TD, were laid before the Houses on 9 February 2000.
The material is available for public inspection at the
offices of the Commission. Notices were placed in the
print media advertising this fact.
Table H: Donations disclosed by unsuccessful European Parliament
election candidates
Candidate Name Constituency Donations Disclosed (£)
Seán Crowe (SF) Dublin 4,000.00
Adam Goodwin (Ind) Dublin 2,240.00
Bernie Malone (Lab) Dublin 13,714.89
Jim Mitchell TD (FG) Dublin 29,033.50
Seán Butler (Lab) Leinster 5,452.08
Jim Corr (FG) Munster 36,897.57
Paula Desmond (Lab) Munster 2,700.00
Ben Nutty (GP) Munster 1,000.00
Paul Campbell (NLP) Connacht-Ulster 1,000.00
Gerard Gibbons (Lab) Connacht-Ulster 13,234.00
Marian Harkin (Ind) Connacht-Ulster 15,026.00
Noel Treacy TD (FF) Connacht-Ulster 3,500.00
Total value disclosed - £127,798.04

Dublin South-Central Dáil bye- legislation and to ensure, as far as possible, a correct

election of 27 October 1999 and speedy completion of statutory forms.

Nine candidates and eight political parties contested
the Dublin South-Central bye-election to fill the
vacancy created by the death of Labour Party Deputy
Mr. Pat Upton on 22 February 1999 (Table I below).
Guidelines entitled: Handbook for the Dublin South-
Central Dáil bye-election on 27th October 1999 were
issued to candidates, their election agents and the
national agents of the political parties.
Representatives of the Commission visited the
constituency and met with candidates and election
agents, both during and after the bye-election
campaign. The visits were undertaken to provide
advice and assistance on the requirements of the
On 13 October 1999 the Minister for the Environment
and Local Government made an order, The Electoral
33
Act, 1997 (Limitation of Election Expenses at Dáil
Election) Order, 1999 (S.I. 317 of 1999), increasing the
expenditure limits for Dáil elections to reflect the rise in
the Consumer Price Index since the provisions of the
Act relating to the limitation of election expenditure
commenced on 1 January 1998. The expenditure limits
were increased from £14,000, £17,000 and £20,000 to
£14,453, £17,550 and £20,648 for three, four and five
seat constituencies, respectively. This was the first
occasion that the Minister had varied the monetary
amounts in the legislation. As a four seat Dáil
constituency, total election expenditure incurred at the

Table I: Candidates, Election Agents and National Agents at the Dublin

South-Central Dáil bye-election of 27 October, 1999
Candidate Political Party Election Agent National Agent
John Burns Natural Law Party Candidate Noel O’Neill
Catherine Byrne Fine Gael Brian Hayes TD Tom Curran
John Goodwillie Green Party Candidate Stephen Rawson
Shay Kelly Workers Party Rita Whelan Pat Quearney
Manus MacMeanmain Christian Solidarity Candidate Martin O’Reilly
Michael Mulcahy Fianna Fáil Denis Murphy Hugh Dolan
Eamonn Murphy Independent Candidate N/A
Aengus Ó Snodaigh Sinn Féin Brian Dowling Lucilita Bhreathnach
Mary Upton TD Labour Party Niall Connolly Angus Laverty
 Dublin South-Central bye-election had to remain
within an expenditure limit of £17,550 per candidate.
Analysis of election expenditure
Election Expenses Statements were received in respect
of each of the nine candidates and eight political
parties who contested the bye-election. Analysis of the
Statements demonstrates that total expenditure by
candidates and political parties at the bye-election was
£67,918.27 (Table J below). Expenditure of £64,680.27
was incurred by the nine candidates themselves, while
a total of £3,238.00 was incurred on their candidates
by four of the eight political parties.
The highest amount of expenditure at the bye-election
was £17,807.62, which was incurred on behalf of the
successful Labour Party candidate, Dr. Mary Upton, TD,
by her election agent. This figure exceeded the
expenditure limit by £257.62. The election agent
informed the Commission that the overspend resulted
from three factors:
34
(i) his understanding that rent and insurance costs
incurred on a campaign office in the constituency
in respect of a period prior to the moving of the
writ for the bye-election by the Labour Party would
not be taken into account as election expenditure;
(ii) insurance costs on a campaign office for the
duration of the election period were much higher
than in the case of previous elections; and
(iii) an unanticipated VAT charge had arisen in relation
to a Party Political Broadcast.
The Commission formed the view that the election
agent did not knowingly cause an overspend to occur
and that the amount of the overspend was not
material. The Commission decided, however, that a
contravention of the Act had taken place and,
accordingly, it had no option but to refer the matter to
the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. At the
time of writing this report, the Commission is
considering a reply received from the Office of the
Director of Public Prosecutions indicating, inter alia,
that, because of ambiguity in the statute, it is not clear
that the agent’s view as outlined at (i) above is
incorrect. As far as the Commission is concerned,
absolute clarity on this point is essential if the efficacy
of the legislation in relation to election expenditure is
to survive. The Commission, having taken legal advice,
was satisfied that the 1998 Act, which amended a
number of provisions of the original legislation which
were felt to be unclear, had provided that expenditure
incurred prior to the election period on property to be
used at the election during the election period is to be
regarded as election expenditure. The Commission will
be taking steps to ensure that the matter is resolved at
the earliest possible date.
Five candidates at the bye-election qualified for a
reimbursement of their election expenses. These
candidates were either elected at the bye-election or
secured, at any stage of the counting of votes, at least
one-quarter of what would have been the quota in the
constituency had the bye-election been a general
election. This figure was 1,006 votes (5% of the valid
poll). The candidates were reimbursed the lesser of
£5,000 or the actual amount of expenses incurred. As
set out in the legislation, the Commission
recommended that the amount of the overspend by
Deputy Upton’s election agent be deducted from the
reimbursement due to her. The amounts of
reimbursements are set out in Table J.
Disclosure of donations
Donation Statements were received from each of the
eight unsuccessful candidates (Table J). Only two of
the unsuccessful candidates disclosed donations
received in excess of the £500 disclosure threshold.
Exchequer funding of political
parties
The electoral legislation provides for the public funding
of certain political parties known as qualified parties.
(This is separate from the funding available to parties
under the Party Leaders’ Allowance Scheme in relation
to which the Commission, as yet, has no function.) In
1999, the Commission received details of how the
funding received for 1998, the first year in respect of
which payments were made, was used by the parties.
To qualify for funding, a party must be included in the
Register of Political Parties and must have secured at
least two per cent of the first preference votes at the
last previous Dáil general election (i.e. the general
election of 6 June 1997). Seven parties qualified for
Table J: Election expenditure, donations disclosed and reimbursements made
in regard to the Dublin South-Central bye-election of 27 October, 1999
Candidate Donations Expenditure by Expenditure by Total Reimbursement
Disclosed Election Agent National Agent Expenditure Received
£ £ £ £ £
John Burns Nil 163.00 Nil 163.00 Not qualified
Catherine Byrne 1,720 15,326.40 Nil 15,326.40 5,000
John Goodwillie Nil 2,365.28 85.00 2,450.28 2,450.28
Shay Kelly Nil 1,300.00 1,585.00 2,885.00 Not qualified
Manus MacMeanmain 520 1,258.27 1,448.00 2,706.27 Not qualified
Michael Mulcahy Nil 17,426.93 Nil 17,426.93 5,000
Eamonn Murphy Nil 1,246.30 N/A 1,246.30 Not qualified
Aengus Ó Snodaigh Nil 7,786.47 120.00 7,906.47 5,000
Mary Upton TD N/A* 17,807.62 Nil 17,807.62 4,742.38
TOTALS 2,240 64,680.27 3,238.00 67,918.27 22,192.66

* The successful candidate must furnish an annual Donation Statement by 31 January each year as a member of
Dáil Éireann.

public funding on the basis of the 1997 general
election results. The amount of funding payable to
each qualified party is determined by the proportion it
secured of the total first preference votes received by all
of the qualified parties.
The legislation provides that the funding may be used
by the qualified parties only in relation to the following
areas:
audit the Statement and that Auditor’s report is
submitted with the Statement to the Commission. The
material is laid by the Commission before the Houses of
35
the Oireachtas and is put on public display. Payments
are not made beyond end-April of any year unless a
party has furnished a Donation Statement and an
Exchequer Expenditure Statement with the
accompanying Auditor’s Report to the Commission in
respect of the preceding year.

(i) general administration of the party; Payments made in respect of 1998

(ii) research, education and training;
(iii) policy formulation; and
(iv) co-ordination of the activities of branches
and members of the party.
The funding is also deemed to include provision in
respect of spending by the parties on the promotion of
participation by women and young persons in political
activity. It is not permitted to apply the funding to
offset expenses incurred at elections.
Qualified parties must account for their use of the
funding on an annual basis in respect of the preceding
calendar year. The Appropriate Officer of each party
provides an Exchequer Expenditure Statement to the
Commission which details the amount of the funding
and how it was utilised. A Public Auditor is required to
Under the legislation, total payments to qualified
parties may not exceed one million pounds annually,
subject to an automatic increase in line with any
general increase in civil service remuneration. There
were two such increases in 1998 under the terms of
Partnership 2000 which increased the total Exchequer
funding available to the seven qualified parties for
1998 by £30,346.98 to £1,030,346.98. The actual
amount paid out, however, was £1,028,299.86 (Table
K) arising from a recommendation made by the
Commission to the Minister for Finance that, because
of an overspend by Fine Gael at the Limerick East bye-
election of 11 March 1998, the amount of the
overspend, £2,047.12, should be deducted from the
sum that would otherwise have been due to the party
for 1998.
 Table K: Expenditure of Exchequer funding received by qualified political
parties in respect of 1998

Qualified General Research, Policy Co-ordination Promotion Total

Political Admin. Education Formulation of branches of women / Funding
Parties & Training and members young persons for 1998
£ £ £ £ £ £
Fianna Fáil 280,836 Nil Nil 132,173 36,428 449,437.36*
Fine Gael 145,980 62,188 49,199 26,076 33,815 317,257.42*
Labour 91,215 Nil 12,049 9,630 5,905 118,799.00*
Progressive
Democrats 53,476 Nil Nil Nil [6,563**] 53,475.01*
Green Party 3,368 23,952 4,074 Nil 135 31,528.62*
Sinn Féin 27,140 Nil 1,479 Nil 540 29,158.81*
Democratic Left 21,770 Nil 615 6,259 [3,000**] 28,643.64*
TOTALS 623,785 86,140 67,416 174,138 76,823** 1,028,299.86*

* The table does not add across to the precise figures shown under the column headed ‘Total Funding for 1998’
because parties rounded amounts to the nearest £ when accounting for their expenditure.
** Expenditure on the promotion of participation by women and young persons in political activity must be shown
separately, although it may already be included under one or more of the other headings. This was the case in
relation to the Progressive Democrats and Democratic Left. The total shown at the foot of the column (£76,823)
36 excludes the amounts shown separately for this activity by those two parties.

Merger of Democratic Left and the there is a merger of political parties or where a political
Labour Party party disbands or additional Dáil members join a party.
The Commission has made its views on this issue
An issue which impacted on the Exchequer funding of known to the Department of the Environment and
political parties for 1999 was the merger of the Labour Local Government. The question of whether there
Party and Democratic Left on 24 January 1999. As should be an amendment to the legislation and
Democratic Left ceased to be included in the Register whether such an amendment would be retrospective
of Political Parties from the date of the merger, it failed are matters for decision by the Minister for Finance and
to meet one of the qualifying conditions under the the Minister for the Environment and Local
legislation for receipt of Exchequer funding. The party Government.
was, therefore, not entitled to any public funding in
respect of most of 1999. A payment of £1,942.41 was Payments made in respect of 1999
made for the period from 1 to 24 January 1999.
A breakdown of the funding received by each of the
A question has arisen as to the treatment of the seven qualified parties for 1999 is provided in Table L
amount which would have been paid to Democratic below. The parties are required to provide details of
Left had it not merged with the Labour Party. It is how they utilised this funding not later than 31 March
evident that the sums payable to qualified political 2000 and this will be covered in the Commission’s next
parties are determined by the outcome of the relevant Annual Report. The amounts paid during the year
general election and are fixed in relation to that include one general civil service remuneration increase
strength for the duration of the resulting Dáil. As far as of 1.5% which arose in July 1999 under Partnership
the redistribution of funds is concerned, there appears 2000. Although the overall amount available for
to be no mechanism for dealing with situations where payment for 1999 was £1,055,924, only
£1,028,512.19 was actually paid to the qualified which would have been due to Democratic Left had
parties. This difference of £27,411.81 is the balance the merger with the Labour Party not taken place.

Table L: Exchequer funding of qualified political parties in 1999

Qualified First preference Column 2 as a % Total Exchequer

Political votes as a % of of qualified parties’ Funding for 1999
Parties total first total first
preference votes preference votes £
Fianna Fáil 39.33 43.62 460,594.26
Fine Gael 27.95 30.99 327,231.00
Labour 10.40 11.53 121,748.10
Progressive Democrats 4.68 5.19 54,802.48
Green Party 2.76 3.06 32,311.28
Sinn Féin 2.55 2.83 29,882.66
Democratic Left 2.51 2.78 1,942.41
TOTALS 90.18 100.00 1,028,512.19

37
 Appendix 1

Costs in 1999

The expenditure outlined below was incurred

in 1999. The expenditure is provided for in
Subhead B of Vote 17 [Ombudsman]. The
amount shown for staff salaries includes
amounts in respect of staff who had been
engaged on duties connected to the
Referendum Commission and who are
currently assigned to the Office of the
Ombudsman. The bulk of the figure for travel
and expenses is accounted for by visits to
constituencies during the European Parliament
38
election for meetings with agents, candidates,
etc. The figure for incidental expenses mainly
covers the cost of public notices in national
and local newspapers advertising the
availability of material for public inspection.

Staff Salaries £312,000

Travel & Expenses £7,000
Incidental Expenses £99,000
Postal & Telecommunications £9,000
Office Machinery & other Office Supplies £17,000
Office Premises £8,000
Total £452,000
Appendix 2

Statements of interests furnished

by Designated Directors

This appendix contains details of statements of

interests received from Designated Directors of
State-sponsored bodies under the Ethics in
Public Office Act, 1995 for the last three
registration years.

Year ending * No. of Public Total Number

Bodies specified of Statements
by S.I. No. 32 Received
of 1997
28 February 1997 113 508
39
31 January 1998 112 594
31 January 1999 112 583

* Given the changes that have occurred since

the regulations were made (see page 8), a
number of public bodies originally specified
are now outside the scope of the Act.
 Appendix 3

Ethics in Public Office Act, 1995

Statement of Interests (Nil)
Section 17 - Designated Directors

Name of Person Holding Designated Directorship :

Public Body:

Date of Appointment:

* Period Covered by this Statement:

Address for Correspondence:

40

* Disclosure is required for each year during any part of which a designated directorship is held.

I hereby state that, in respect of the period covered by this statement, I have no registrable
interests, as specified in the Ethics in Public Office Act, 1995, of my own, or, to my actual
knowledge, of a spouse or child, which could materially influence me in, or in relation to, the
performance of the functions of the directorship described above.

I am also aware of the obligations placed on me by Section 17(1)(b) of the Ethics in Public Office
Act, 1995 (see below) and of the requirement to provide a statement of registrable interests on
leaving the directorship.

Signed: Date:

17(1)(b) in any case where such a function (of the directorship), or a function of any other office or
position held by the person in that public body, falls to be performed and he or she has actual
knowledge that he or she or a connected person has a material interest in a matter to which the
function relates (he or she)-
(i) shall, as soon as may be, prepare and furnish to the other directors of the body a statement in
writing of those facts,
(ii) shall not perform the function unless there are compelling reasons requiring him or her to do so,
and
(iii) shall, if he or she proposes to perform the function, prepare and furnish to the other directors
of the body and to the Commission, before or, if that is not reasonably practicable, as soon as
may be after such performance, a statement in writing of the compelling reasons aforesaid.
‘Nil’ statement of interests forms

The forms contained in this appendix have been produced and distributed by the Commission to facilitate the
making of a ‘nil’ annual statement of interests by directors and executives in state-sponsored bodies who are covered
by sections 17 and 18, respectively, of the Ethics in Public Office Act, 1995. It is understood that the Department of
Finance is considering use of the same format in the civil service.

Ethics in Public Office Act, 1995

Statement of Interests (Nil)
Section 18 - Designated Positions of Employment

Name of Person Occupying Designated Position:

Position Held:

Public Body:

Date of Appointment:

* Period Covered by this Statement:

41

Address for Correspondence:

* Disclosure is required for each year during any part of which a designated position is occupied.

I hereby state that, in respect of the period covered by this statement, I have no registrable
interests, as specified in the Ethics in Public Office Act, 1995, of my own, or, to my actual
knowledge, of a spouse or child, which could materially influence me in, or in relation to, the
performance of the functions of the position described above.

I am also aware of the obligations placed on me by Section 18(2)(b) of the Ethics in Public Office
Act, 1995 (see below) and of the requirement to furnish a statement of registrable interests on
leaving the position.

Signed: Date:

18(2)(b) in any case where such a function (of the position) falls to be performed and he or she has actual
knowledge that he or she or a connected person has a material interest in a matter to which the
function relates (he or she)-

(i) shall, as soon as may be, prepare and furnish to the relevant authority a statement in writing of
those facts,
(ii) shall not perform the function unless there are compelling reasons requiring him or her to do so,
and
(iii) shall, if he or she proposes to perform the function, prepare and furnish to the relevant
authority, before or, if that is not reasonably practicable, as soon as may be after such
performance, a statement in writing of the compelling reasons aforesaid.