Deputy Philip Hogan was in possession. May I advise the House that at 8.15 p.m. Deputy Brendan Howlin will be called.
Private Members' Business. - Ethics in Government and Public Office Bill, 1991: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
With your permission, Sir, may I seek the approval of the House to share my time with Deputy Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny) and with Deputy Dr. Garret FitzGerald?
Is that agreed? Agreed.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Since I am sharing time with Deputy FitzGerald I will be very brief. I suppose at this stage it is very apt to be talking about ethics in politics and about high standards in high places. We hear often of cynicism on the part of the public in relation to politics and politicians and I suggest that we as politicians should not add to that by suggesting we are all under suspicion. I want to make two points. First I have seen Ministers travelling around the country, often at great inconvenience to themselves, to open factories and to attend hospital meetings. If a souvenir is presented to them I do not think they should be expected to go to the nearest jeweller to know whether it is gold or make believe gold. If we put a limit of £200 on gifts before they have to be declared, it will mean that Ministers will be inundated with extremely valuable gifts. It may be different when it comes to national and international gifts but the least we can do is to allow a Minister who travels the country serving the nation as best he can is to have whatever souvenir he has received because most of these gifts have a personal rather than an intrinsic value.
Second, I unashamedly say that political parties should be funded by the State. I am tired of going to meetings, not alone asking the supporters to vote for me, to canvass for me but to put their hands in their pockets to keep the party going. The slogan "funding democracy" is something we should bear in mind at all stages because only when there is an absence of democracy, as in Eastern Europe and in the Middle East and such places we realise what a privilege it is to have democracy. There is nothing wrong with a political party getting funds to stay in existence. However, I have very strong views about the waste of moneys at election time and in the absence of any such provision in the Bill let me say it is about time we brought in some form of regulation on canvassing outside polling booths and on the erection of posters. This should be reviewed because we are living in the past.
I should like to support strongly the proposals contained in the Bill, but I would urge that they be taken further in order to provide the fullest reassurance to the public that our political and governmental system is free from any element of or suspicion of financial corruption or undue influence by interests in the private sector.
This reassurance is not, I feel, adequately provided for by the terms of the proposed legislation on gifts, which seems to envisage only gifts received by Ministers when actually in office. Moreover, I have the impression that the provisions of the Bill, while in their present form, are appropriate to gifts of articles to Ministers — in respect of the treatment of which I should say I applied in my own case a somewhat higher figure than here proposed, based in the absence of any specified limit on the figure insurance companies employ in requiring specific declarations of individual items for insurance purposes — and do not seem to be really designed to cover cases involving financial favours that might be received by a corrupt Minister. To ensure that the latter type of transaction is adequately covered it would, I think, be necessary to include provisions for disclosure of Ministers' assets, liabilities, and income and possibly also of their spouses and dependent children, without which verification of disclosure of gifts would be ineffective. This would necessitate the inclusion of additional sections to require such a disclosure by Ministers on their appointment, during their period in office and for a number of years thereafter, possibly five. Moreover it should be provided that this disclosure be made in confidence to a monitoring group or commission, comprising such persons as the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Ombudsman and a judge of the High Court rather than to the Secretary to the Government. This Commission should have the power to investigate any allegation that might be made and if they found that an improper gift or payment had been made, but only in that event, to make the relevant information public. Only through such a procedure will members of Governments be protected from rumours and allegations of corruption and the public be reassured that no such misconduct has taken place.
Is the Deputy talking about gifts to Ministers after leaving office?
Yes, up to five years after leaving office, I suggest.
Would that include renewal of directorships?
No, I am talking about gifts received. I am not talking about directorships except, of course, in a case where a directorship was given to somebody because of action they had taken when in Government and in that event, of course, there could be an imputation of corruption.
Is there nothing wrong with taking very remunerative directorships after you leave office?
Nothing whatsoever as long as they do not derive from any actions taken when in office, Taoiseach.
How do you prove that?
The provision for a £1,000 ceiling on contributions to political parties and candidates by persons or bodies seems to me to be defective in that, subject to correction, it does not seem to cover adequately the possible case of a large concern, comprising — as is often the case — a multiplicity of companies. If each of these gave £1,000 to a party the total contribution a major concern could lawfully make under this Part of the Bill, could be very large, and if that were linked to an administrative act or other measure designed to favour that concern it could constitute a significant act of financial corruption.
Either this Part should be more tightly drafted or — and this I would strongly support in its own right — the permitted sum should be reduced to a fraction of the proposed figure, and all but a small minority of the financing of political parties and elections, should be financed by the electorate as a whole through adequate Exchequer payments rather than as at present by individual persons or companies. The setting aside of a sum of the order of 0.01 per cent of GNP. which at present would mean around £2.25 million annually, distributed between the parties pro rata with their share of support, would finance our political system in a manner that would eliminate the possibility of parties policies or Governments actions being influenced by or being thought to be influenced by private financial contributions.
A similar sum on the occasion of a general election, with appropriately smaller sums for other elections, especially if linked with the reintroduction of limits on spending at election time, as existed up to 30 years ago, but at realistic levels, would eliminate the need for parties to seek financial support from individuals or companies in order to finance their campaigns. Moreover, such a provision would release the energies of political parties from almost perpetual fund raising to undertake more constructive political work, including a greater input into policy formulation.
I should like to reject the views put forward recently by the chairman of the Progressive Democrats on this issue. I hope and believe they are not shared by the Members of that party in the Oireachtas. His reference to contributions to this debate as coming from "bankrupt parties" which "had all the air of children planning to rob a sweet shop" was childish and unworthy of the serious level at which this matter has been discussed here.
The suggestion that the provision of adequate Exchequer funding to free political parties from dependence on contributions from the private sector was "a deliberate attempt to undermine the constitutional guarantees of free speech, freedom of associations and equality" was perverse to the point of palpable absurdity. His statement that "State funding suited the corrupt" stood truth on its head. I am glad that in the absence of Mr. McDowell from this House this matter has been debated in a considered and dignified way. I hope this Bill will start a process that will free our politics from even a suspicion of corruption.
Over a period of 70 years this State has been singularly, even if, perhaps inevitably, not totally, free of corruption in public life. Which of us, if challenged, could name even six politicians whom we suspect, however unworthily, of corrupt acts, during these seven decades? Of how many other modern States is that true? Apart from Scandinavia where this is true I would have difficulty naming any other modern State.
Let us now take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that this remarkable record neither deteriorates nor is believed by our people to have deteriorated. By supporting this Bill and making whatever adjustments to it as may be needed on Committee Stage, we will be doing justice to the record of public life in Ireland.
In the time available to me I intend to deal briefly with the main provisions of the Bill. The case against the main provision in the Bill, namely gifts to office holders, has already been made by Deputies on both sides of the House.
There are three proposals in the Bill.
I should like to point out that the Bill is very badly drafted and shows a great deal of confusion. It would appear from section 4, which deals with gifts to office holders, that while a gift cannot be made to an office holder it can be made to his spouse. It is recognised in a later section of the Bill that benefits or services at less than their Commercial value can be given for the benefit of office holders. This provision is excluded from section 4.
(Wexford): Their wives will be delighted.
Section 7 is totally unworkable. I have seen bad legislation introduced here both by way of Private Members' Bills and Government Bills but I have rarely seen a section as confused and badly thought out as section 7 of this Bill.
Did the Deputy not vote for the rod licence Bill?
Time does not permit me to go into this point in detail but section 7 seems to be totally confused and unworkable. It is fine to talk about laudable objectives and concepts, but it is another matter to translate them into legal reality and make them stick.
Part II of the Bill deals with the registration of the interests of individual politicians. I am emphatically opposed to the thinking behind this proposal. I do not understand why politicians should be singled out as a group. This is possibly unconstitutional in a country which has a written Constitution. In the debate last night some backbenchers on this side of the House suggested that this provision might discourage people from entering politics. I do not think that this is true but it could have a more pernicious result. If I had time I would outline how a person could avoid the provisions in section 14 (1) straightaway. People will seek to avoid and evade this legislation. I predict that if this legislation were to go on the Statute Book it would be honoured more in the breach than in the observance from day one.
This is a small tightly knit community. The main argument put forward by speakers on the other side of the House seems to be that if we pass this legislation we will raise the public perception of politicians. I think the opposite would be the case. If we have legislation on the Statute Book which is directed specifically at politicians and it is allowed to fall into disuse or is obviously avoided, as this legislation would be, either by legal or illegal means, then the public perception of politicians will be lowered rather than raised. The public perception of politicians depends on their performance in this House, particularly in Government. I recall that the public perception of politicians during 1982-87 was at an all time low. The party in Government in 1982 were elected on the basis of controlling public expenditure——
Is that the GUBU period?
——but they doubled the national debt by the time they left office.
Was that the phone tapping era?
It had been trebled by the previous Administration.
That is what brought politicians and poliltics in this country into disrepute.
Some of our phones were tapped.
The imposition of police State type laws aimed specifically at one small group will not raise the public perception of politicians.
I congratulate the Minister on rejecting the Bill and the House should also reject it.
(Wexford): It will be a long time before they are in Government again.
The Labour Party should, in fairness, withdraw this obnoxious legislation.
(Interruptions.)
I call Deputy Brendan Howlin chun deireadh a chur leis an díospóireacht.
I will endeavour to bring this discussion to a conclusion. Deputy O'Dea made an extraordinary final conclusion and I will comment on it later. His contribution and the proposals which were before this House earlier today put the need for a code of ethics into some perspective. Anyone who suggests that there is public confidence in the standards in public life and in the highest offices of this land is out of touch.
The Deputy should speak for his party.
(Wexford): Speak for yourself.
There is a considerable erosion of public confidence in office holders which unfortunately reflects on every elected Member of this House. We have a responsibility to address that fact. We can hide from it, run from it, ignore it and denigrate it if we like, but the reality is that there is widespread concern among the general public about standards in public life. Unfortunately that shadow lies across all of us.
The Labour Party have sought by way of simple measures to put in place fundamental principles. When I moved this Bill last week I said we were debating fundamental principles with which people should have no difficulty. If they have difficulty with the principles we seek to enact in this legislation, I suggest that they examine their conscience. No charade about faulty draftsmanship or statements like "We do it differently" will hide from these principles. In ten or 12 minutes Deputy O'Dea and every other Member will be asked to give a Second Reading to this Bill. This involves the acceptance of principles. If there are faults in the drafting and amendments are needed we can address those issues on Committee Stage. Deputies should not seek to hide the issues. Three principles will be put to this House tonight, three principles which are crystal clear to everyone who wants to address them——
(Wexford): The Deputy should set his own principles.
The Labour Party want to do three things.
(Wexford): I do not need anyone to legislate for my principles.
Deputy Howlin, I suggest that you will get a more passive and sympathetic audience from the Chair if you let the Chair rather than Deputy Browne——
(Interruptions.)
I will try——
The Deputy should address the Chair.
I will address the Chair on this important issue. My time is at a premium and I will keep going.
There are three fundamental issues in this Bill and I want to put them to the House for consideration by each Member. If anyone has difficulty with them or objects to any one of them in a fundamental way, let them argue against them. We should not confuse the issue and talk about the words used — the drafting and how the sections are not constructed properly. I am not a legislative draftsman; but we have the mechanism to amend the wording if we want to enact these principles.
The three principles in the Bill are simple. The first focuses on gifts to office holders in this State; by office holders I mean Ministers, Ministers of State and the Attorney General. The Bill seeks in essence to provide that gifts in excess of £200 should be the property of the State. We are not talking about tokens or small gifts; we are talking about very substantial gifts which Members have received in the past. We are talking about gifts worth tens of thousands of pounds which are reputed to have been given to senior office holders in this land. That did cause public disquiet. It did cause public concern, and let nobody deny that. What we want is a mechanism which exists in most civilised countries, that people do not, by virtue of their office, expect to receive and retain fabulous gifts. I put this forward as a principle. The House can take it or leave it on that basis at 8.30 p.m. and we can deal with the mechanism for putting that into effect if the principle is accepted on Committee Stage.
The second principle is also a simple one — that there would be a register of financial interests of each Member of this House and of the other House. We had a long debate on another issue earlier today, and clearly it is important that the public should know if Members of this House have financial involvements in companies. If those same companies are being debated by this House, or if legislation that impacts on those companies is being debated by this House or the other House, is it not right, is it not the norm that people would have a right to expect to know if there are linkages between those companies and individual Members discussing that issue either directly on the Floor of this House or on subcommittees of this House?
It is in all our interests that the register of interests would be put into place. Anyone would think it was an alien idea, a foreign concept. We have spent an entire day on the Local Government Bill and we are returning to it now. Members of county councils are required to register their interests. Is it not farcical that members of a county council have to register their interest in case a planning application would come into conflict with their duties as a county councillor, but we can sit here and enact legislation, often specific legislation, that deals with particular companies, businesses, enterprises or market sectors, and nobody asks us if we are directors of the company, advisers to the company, if we have any benefit or financial interests for ourselves or our families or our spouses in relation to that company? I do not think that is an outrageous suggestion; I think it is a simple, ordinary suggestion that would be accepted as the norm in most democratic countries.
What is the third terrible principle that has to be rejected as the most awful Bill we have ever had to deal with? Probably the one that strikes home hardest, that is, the declaration of income of political parties. I know that would be a terrible Bill to enact, God help us. We might have to put on the public record who is funding the parties. For my party, we publish an annual account, and the money that comes into our party is a matter of public record. That practice should be followed by other parties in the State. The third principle that we put into this Bill is the requirement that Financial contributions in excess of £1,000 would have to be registered and visible and accounted for, and notified to a registrar who would have to publish annual accounts.
They are the three simple principles we put forward and I am amazed that anybody in this House would have difficulties with those fundamental principles.
(Interruptions.)
When we put this Bill forward we did not say it was excellently drafted, that it had no flaws, but I must say that sufficient effort went into it to expect a reasoned response from the Minister for Finance. He did not give us that. It was interesting that he addressed the main issues in the Bill by simply saying that they were not appropriate to statute, that they would be more appropriate to regulations of the House. In his contribution last week, on 7 May, the Minister for Finance said: "The Deputy's party"— he referred to me —"has already raised this matter in the Committee on Procedure and Privileges". This is the interesting bit—"Due to other parties' need to consult and consider the matter further, there has been little progress on the proposals as yet". Never a truer word was said by the Minister, because he has buried it twice.
I am the representative of my party on the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. Twice I brought detailed proposals to the committee, meeting in private and in secret so that nobody is able to look over our shoulders, and I put the proposals, the enactment of this Bill, before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. What happened? The Minister's party nearly had a seizure, Fine Gael nearly had a second seizure, and between the two of them they had to consult first with the party Whips. The party Whips then were notified that they needed a discussion on this important measure, they had to consult. The consultations took a year. I reckoned there was enough consultation in a year so I put it on the agenda again for the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. It went back and they are still consulting and the Minister said last week — a year and a half later — that he understood the matter remains on the agenda and should the Deputy wish it can be raised again at an appropriate time. We should live so long. Frankly, I know the Minister has a good sense of humour and I accept a good joke, but in reality he has no more intention of putting these provisions into rules of the House than he has of enacting them into legislation. He wants them buried, but he wants them buried privately.
Last week, my colleague, Deputy Gerry O'Sullivan, speaking on this Bill, made a new proposal to the Minister. In his speech on 14 May he suggested that the Labour Party would withdraw this Bill, if we got agreement of the House on these four conditions: that gifts to senior office holders together with the issues of Members' financial interests would be referred for consideration to a subcommittee of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges; that that sub-committee would be representative of every group in the House; that it would meet in public session like any ad hoc or informal subcommittee of the House; and that the Minister for Finance would agree to commence discussions with representatives of other political parties on the issue of funding political parties with a view to drawing up guidelines which ultimately may be encompassed in legislative reform.
We have been patient. We have gone through the procedures of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. We have drafted a Bill and discussed it here. Even at this late hour, we, in the Labour Party, sought to give some chance of establishing codes of ethics in this House and in the other House that might begin the process of raising the esteem that we as elected Members have among the general public.
Why did the Labour Party not do it when they were in Government.
(Interruptions.)
I am not accountable for anything that happened before I came into this House. I am suggesting it be done now.
(Interruptions.)
I take it, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that you will admonish the Taoiseach in the same way as you admonish everybody else.
The Deputy seems to have a reluctance to look forward, he continues to look to his right and that leads to interruptions.
I apologise. I am looking for reaction from this side of the House because they are the people who will have the majority in two or three minutes time. Let me say this in response to the Taoiseach — and I know I should not be drawn. There is a code. If one listens to people at any public meeting there is always one who says "how about you?" If one is talking about cruelty to children, they say, "how about cruelty to animals?" If one says a pothole should be filled, they say "how about the wall you should be building?" There is always something else we should be doing. Let us address the issue before us. Let us address it now, and for once, let us not look back four years to somebody else who was responsible. The time is now, the vote is shortly and this is the issue. Do we want standards in public life? God knows the last two days have taken their toll on an already well dented public image of politicians in this country. Do we want standards or not? In the words of the bard, it is put up or shut up time. The Government should either support the principles we are putting forward by way of legislation.
In deference to the Deputy's own invitation, I must say how about concluding?
In conclusion, let me say that in a very detailed contribution last night my colleague, Deputy O'Sullivan, indicated that we are certainly not putting ourselves forward as having any monopoly on virtue. The vast majority of Deputies in this House — 99.9 per cent — have absolutely nothing to fear from these proposals. That is why they should march in supporting them in two minutes' time. The issues are matters of principle. The detail can be enacted later, it is time now to decide. The parties in Government can take a second decisive step tonight by accepting the modest proposals, moral proposals, just proposals, put forward by the Labour Party.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 72; Níl, 74.
Tá
- Ahearn, Therese.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Currie, Austin.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Garland, Roger.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Bell, Michael.
- Belton, Louis J.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lee, Pat.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick J.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hillard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P. J.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J.
- (Limerick West).
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea. Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Howlin and Ferris; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy.
Question declared lost.