asked the Taoiseach the aggregate value of the gifts which he and members of the Government have received while holding office since March, 1987; and whether he has any proposals to change the rules or to legislate in this area.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Acceptance of Gifts.
4.
I have not got information of this nature and as far as I am aware none of my predecessors since the foundation of the State have ever considered it necessary to compile it. It would of course be offensive to the donors to have their gestures of goodwill valued in monetary terms. There are no proposals for legislation in this area.
Would the Taoiseach confirm that on the occasion of the visit of the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia last year, members of the Government received diamond daggers and that his wife received a diamond necklace valued at an estimated £250,000 by virtue of the fact that she was the wife of the office holder of the Office of Taoiseach?
Certainly I received a dagger.
What did the Taoiseach do with it?
The Deputy might wish to put it to some use which I would not approve. I know that the College of Surgeons received a dagger as did the Chester Beatty Library. These are the only ones I know of.
The Taoiseach will be known as "dagger" from now on.
The details mentioned by the Deputy in respect of a gift received by my wife in her personal capacity, specifically indicated by the very gracious and generous donor to be in a totally personal capacity, are widely exaggerated and way above the mark. Perhaps I might explain to the Deputy my personal view on this matter. In so far as I am concerned, over a long period of years, I have been given gifts of one kind or another, varying from a piece of Waterford Glass from a Fianna Fáil Cumann to perhaps more significant gifts from visiting dignatories. I do not attribute any monetary value to these gifts. They will never be disposed of and I will never profit from them. So far as I am concerned they represent a collection of very great sentimental value to me. They are a record of my public life and are mementoes of different occasions in that public life. What will eventually happen to them as a collection I do not know at this stage but I can assure the Deputy that they will never be used for the personal profit of myself or any member of my family.
I accept totally what the Taoiseach has said, that they will not be used for personal profit in the way he mentions but there is a different aspect to this and that is that a value should be put on gifts because of the political influence they could have on members of any Government. In this respect I would like the Taoiseach to outline whether he considers it appropriate that there should be no guidelines for the handing over of gifts of a certain value to the State in some instances? I understand from the Tánaiste's reply to a similar question last October that there are guidelines in respect of commercial gifts. The Tánaiste stated that the donor determined in the instances I outlined whether a gift was to become State property. Does the Taoiseach not think that a certain value should be put on gifts to be kept for personal purposes?
I do not think it would require much thought on the Deputy's part to realise that that would have one very serious disadvantage and, that is, if lists with values were published invidious comparisons would be drawn between different dignatories and visitors. However, I have no objection to further guidelines being brought forward if they are of general application.
I call Deputy Kelly.
A Cheann Comhairle——
I am sorry, Deputy, but I have called Deputy Kelly.
First, I am sure the House would welcome the frankness with which the Taoiseach has now spoken. Secondly, would the Taoiseach agree that if he had permitted the Tánaiste to answer in similar terms on the first day back after the long vacation in October last, four months of newspaper paragraphs might have been avoided? It was the first day back and everyone was glad to see the Tánaiste at the top of his form and enjoyed his performance but it was an evasive performance. Would the Taoiseach agree that it would have been better, with all due respects to the Tánaiste, if the Tánaiste had been authorised to speak in similar terms?
Questions today are directed to the Taoiseach.
Thirdly, would the Taoiseach agree, which he appears to have come very near to doing in his final words, that whatever about his disposition towards the matter or the disposition of any other individual, it is desirable, as Deputy Kennedy has said, that there should be some rule, a rule which can be constructed with all deference and sensitivity for the feelings of donors but nevertheless a clear and transparent rule?
I do not know if Deputy Kelly's experience in this House on public matters has yet taught him it is not always possible to prognosticate what the Tánaiste may or may not say in any given situation. I would like to make it absolutely clear——
He was answering.
——that I heard in my sick bed with perhaps the same relish as others the gist of the Tánaiste's reply. That was the first knowledge I had of it.
Could I ask the Taoiseach for some information for the benefit of all sides of the House? Are the gifts in question, or gifts of this type, liable to capital acquisitions tax, that is, gifts tax? If so, how are they valued? if they are not liable, how are the exempt?
That seems to be a separate question.
I do not think I can give the Deputy a full statutory reply to that, but my information is that they are not liable to capital acquisitions tax.
I want to get on to other questions. I am not prepared to dwell unduly long on this or any other question. I feel I have given sufficient time to it already. A final brief question from Deputy Geraldine Kennedy.
A brief question.
I will facilitate the Deputy.
To clarify the issue, I want to ask the Taoiseach if the House can take it from what he said that he will now prepare guidelines on this issue for the future and if he will give an indication to the House——
No.
——in the near future that there will be guidelines.
I did not say that and I am not saying that. I said I have no particular objection if there is some general movement in that area.
So the Taoiseach is satisfied with the status quo.
I am quite satisfied with the status quo and my deep, long, personal knowledge of this is that the situation that has prevailed over a long period of years affecting many of my predecessors, men of great distinction in ministerial office and as Taoisigh, has never caused any problems of any kind.
The Deputy said he would be very brief. He is asking a series of questions.
The Taoiseach indicated a line of development which apparently is not so. Would he not agree that the fact that his predecessors may have taken a certain position does not necesarily make it right or proper and that, rightly or wrongly, many people would be drawn to the conclusion that some political pressure might be brought to bear on the Taoiseach as a result of the Taoiseach of the day having accepted a valuable gift, even though that might not be so, but in the public eye it would appear so? Would the Taoiseach not agree that that kind of conclusion is highly dangerous and totally unacceptable?
I have no hesitation in saying that the Deputy's thesis is so farfetched as to be absolutely unreal.
If, as the Tánaiste stated in October, there are guidelines in relation the commercial gifts, could the Taoiseach outline them? Since he is the person with the ultimate responsibility now for bringing forward guidelines, would the Taoiseach bring forward some guidelines on this matter if he has no objection to them, as he stated?
I have dealt with that.
He just said he would not bring them forward.
We now proceed to deal with Priority Questions.