Report on Politically Exposed Persons: Motion
Dail Éireann — 2024-04-25
============================================================

Catherine Connolly (IND), Galway West

I thank Deputy McGuinness and the committee. I took the trouble to read the report. I have read many reports since I came into the House. This one has truly horrified me. I heard various Deputies, including Deputy McGuinness, make reference to this issue and, as we say in Galway, I thought they were off their trolley. I did not take this issue seriously, even though I had a legal background. I hear the Minister of State is open to a review and the Government will review the situation.
That review will be crucial. For those who might be listening to us in due course, although I am not sure there will be many, I should state I am described as a politically exposed person, PEP. My bank account is scrutinised unknown to me, as are my deposits, and staff are aware of me when I go into the bank. I have no problem with any of that; indeed, in that regard I can stand on the high moral ground, which is a dangerous place to stand. I do it reluctantly. I have one source of income; it comes straight from the State and comes with a harp on it. I cannot imagine how I could be asked any questions because you can just google to find out my salary and the salaries of all Members. We must have the most open and accountable system in respect of what we earn. My monthly payment goes in and it is there for everybody to see. It comes out either by cash withdrawal or by cheque.
On reading the report, I found, to my consternation, that this goes back to 1990, following a directive. Let us look at the language used. The directive was followed by the 2010 Act in Ireland. I found, to my consternation, that I am included under the scope of the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act 2010. I give out about Deputies’ and parties’ policies, but for any Deputy to come under this is just unacceptable. I am not a terrorist, nor do I smuggle or launder money. I would stand up for every Deputy in regard to this. This is awful.
Deputy McGuinness was looking for a page in the report. It was page 16. His interpretation of comments made by the finance official to the committee was that, while we think it is bad now, it will get worse. The official told us there was a directive but that it will become a regulation, as the Deputy has said. That would mean instant applicability in Ireland. The official stated the issue is not just local to Ireland as all the states are feeling the pain of this. It is nice that somebody is feeling our pain. The official added, “The consensus seems to be that in a balance of interests, family members and associates have to be included.” I will come back to the questions of who defines “associates” and how extensive the family is. I cannot see this information anywhere.
The official also said, in respect of what Deputy McGuinness was seeking to know, “what we are talking about here, is going to become more the norm”. It will become the norm for everyone. The official went on to tell us why:
Fingers have been so badly burned, by various money laundering scandals and the collapse of the financial system several years ago, that the risk appetite is very low.
We are in this group. I had nothing to do with the financial collapse. Most politicians, if not all, had nothing to do with it but the very banks that had a major part to play in it are now supervising our accounts unknown to us, following everything that goes in and out. As I understand it, they can outsource this. I would like the Minister of State to clarify the processes in place, who is monitoring, the outsourcing that has been done, what review has been done up to now, and how it took a committee to ask the Government to carry out a review. At what stage does the monitoring stop for me? When did my risk assessment finish? Who did that in the bank? When I go into a bank to withdraw money from an account, which official is monitoring me? I am using the example of myself, based on the very limited high moral ground I am talking about and which I am most uncomfortable with, just to illustrate the point.
The report has made six recommendations, all of which I endorse, but when it comes to the review I would like the committee to have an input. The foreword of the report repeatedly acknowledges the importance of anti-laundering and the concerns and reasons in that regard. How ironic it is that the very institutions that led us into the mess in the first place are the ones doing the monitoring, but not in an open and accountable way. We know the percentage of money laundering and terrorist financing comprises a significant and costly global threat. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime estimates that illegal money worth between 2% and 5% of global GDP, or approximately $800 billion, is laundered in the world each year. It would be very easy to see what percentage of Deputies’ money is part of that. What we are doing here is making a presumption that all elected officials are guilty until proven innocent and we do not even know the process. Kafka comes to mind. I found his various books very difficult to understand as a young student but I am more than familiar with them now, in English and Irish. The Kafkaesque world that is being created here makes absolute sense because of the presumption that we are guilty until proven innocent.
The proposals are changing all the time to include more and more people and to result in automatic implementation in our country. If a councillor comes up to me and asks what a PEP is and asks whether I am one, I try to explain it is a politically exposed person, but I cannot confirm whether county and city councillors are PEPs. Deputy McGuinness referred to the discussion on the importance of local government. It is ironic that, when people hear about PEPs, very few will want to stand for election. I will not refer to my own family because everyone’s family is now in the picture – our sons, our daughters, our grandchildren. Perhaps our aunts and uncles are also included but I do not know.
I do not know how many times I have stood up here and quoted the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, which talk about legislation being specific, fair, proportionate and existing to achieve a specific purpose. What is the purpose we are trying to achieve with the measure under discussion? Are we now money launderers and terrorists supplying finance to terrorist organisations? That is the framework. It is extremely dangerous for democracy that we would be framed like that. I have repeatedly advocated openness and accountability. We should absolutely monitor what we get but not in this manner. It is positively disgraceful. I understand that under this vague legislation, accounts can be closed and money can be frozen. The account of the councillor, the Deputy and the family can be frozen if there is any suspicion. We do not know whose suspicion because we are not told. Can the Minister of State imagine a councillor going into a bank only to find his or her account has been frozen, or me going in on Monday only to discover that? Imagine what it would do to my reputation. Although we are repeatedly told by officials that this is not to do with defamation or casting aspersions on one’s character but with prevention, we must ask what is being prevented. When I got a salary as a councillor, it went into a bank account or the credit union. This is also the case now. At some stage, sense has to prevail on this and we should examine what is happening. The Government is denigrating the world of politics because of the sins of a few.
We heard Deputy Joan Collins earlier. How ironic it is – this is the third time I have used the word “ironic” regarding the world of corporate power and abuse – that absolutely nothing is being tackled, yet directives and regulations are being imposed without proper discussion, with the Department of Finance official having admitted the appetite for risk is very low because things were so bad.
With regard to the analysis of the Irish part, I was struck by the consensus mentality whereby everybody had to sing from the same hymn sheet without questioning it. I do not have the same agenda as Deputy McGuinness or other Deputies on many topics but I stand firm with them on this matter. This measure is absolutely disproportionate and unfair and is not achieving its purpose. There is a complete absence of data on who is doing what and for how long, on the prosecutions and convictions there have been and on whether the measure has achieved its purpose.

---

Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted.

Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/2024-04-25/debate/main
Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:52:52+00:00
Sitting date: 2024-04-25