The Government is proposing that a person found guilty of a serious and deliberate offence under the Ethics in Public Office Act should be subject to penalties of up to £20,000, but not barred from membership of the Oireachtas.
It also recommends that each member of the Oireachtas should be required to provide a tax-clearance certificate and a statutory declaration that his/her tax affairs are in order within six months of election.
Failure to provide such material to a new Standards in Public Office Commission could, follo wing investigation, lead to possible loss of membership or suspension from the Dail.
The Government warns, however, that constitutional arguments could be advanced that the tax requirements are an unreasonable restriction on the right to stand for election and that the removal or suspension of membership may encroach on Article 15.10 of the Constitution.
It also provides escape clauses, such as human error and oversight, for contraventions of the ethics guidelines.
These are some of the proposals contained in the Government's discussion paper on standards in public office, published yesterday with the aim of providing a standing tribunal to investigate financial irregularities by politicians and public servants.
The document, which is full of options, will be considered by the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Finance and the Public Service over the summer with a view to getting all-party agreement on heads of a Standards in Public Office Bill in the autumn.
The new Standards in Public Office Commission, which is intended to obviate the need for judicial tribunals, would subsume the existing work of the Public Offices Commission under the Ethics in Public Office Act, 1995, and the Electoral Act, 1977. The Government proposes to give it powers "akin to those of a tribunal".
Any member of the public or the Oireachtas could make a complaint to the new commission about the financial affairs of a politician, a public servant, a special adviser or a member of a State board or his/her involvement with the financial affairs of a "connected person".
Complaints would be on the grounds that the circumstances involved were not consistent with maintaining confidence in the discharge of public office. They could concern gifts, investments, or other financial transactions and relate to current or past events.
The Government is suggesting that three criteria should be laid down before a serious complaint could be followed through to investigation: the matter would normally have to concern an interest worth over £10,000; it would concern a serious and substantial allegation, and "clear evidence would have to be provided at the outset in its support".
It recommends the creation of certain offences for breach of the Ethics Act on intentional grounds, rather than through human error or oversight. A fine of up to £1,000 could be imposed where the value of the income or investments not properly disclosed is less than £10,000.
Fines of up to £20,000 and/or imprisonment for up to three years could apply to a contravention for interests worth over £10,000.
The Government concludes, however, that the placing of a bar on persons found guilty of offences under the Ethics Act becoming members of the Oireachtas would be vulnerable to successful constitutional challenge.
No similar prohibition applies to persons convicted of far more serious offences such as murder, rape or substantial fraud.
It is asking the all-party committee to consider whether the proposed ground rules under which a complaint would be investigated are sufficient and whether anonymous letters should be considered by the commission.
The Labour leader, Mr Ruairi Quinn, broadly welcomed the Government's proposals but said they were "weak in some respects". Labour would develop its own proposals to deal with TDs misleading the Dail, he added.
