Written Answers. - Ethics in Public Office Bill.
Bernard J. Durkan
Question:
21
Mr. Durkan
asked the
Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs
the plans, if any, the Government has to alter the proposed Ethics in Government Bill, to accommodate ministerial assistants or advisers and programme managers who wish to seek election to local authorities; his views on whether there will be a conflict of interest in the event of persons with direct access to Ministers' offices being members of local authorities; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Trevor Sargent
Question:
29
Mr. Sargent
asked the
Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs
whether the proposed Ethics in Government Bill will contain provisions relating to the declaration of interests by members of quasi-governmental structures such as health boards, harbour commissioners or vocational education committees; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 21 and 29 together.
In 1985 the Government decided that personal assistants and special advisers in Ministers' offices were free to engage in political activity and stand for election. This has remained the position since.
Programme managers who are not established civil servants are regarded as special advisers for these purposes and as such are free to engage in such activity and to stand for election.
This has been the policy of successive Governments and there is no need to change the Ethics in Public Office Bill to accommodate this arrangement.
As regards possible conflicts of interest, the Ethics in Public Office Bill provides for full disclosure, on an annual basis, by senior special advisers of their own interests and those of a spouse or child which could materially affect them in the performance of their functions. In the case of their own interests, a statement of these would be laid before both Houses, while any relevant interests of a spouse or child would be furnished to the independent Commission.
In addition, a special adviser about to perform a function in respect of which he or she or any connected person (e.g. a spouse or child or close relative or business partner etc.) had a material interest, would have to disclose that fact and would be prohibited from performing that function unless there were compelling reasons requiring this. These compelling reasons would have to be explained in writing to the independent Commission.
In other words any actual potential conflict of interest would have to be disclosed and the matter could then be resolved in a way which would safeguard the public interest.
It should also be noted that any special adviser who failed to meet any of the requirements which I have described would be in breach of the terms of his or her employment, and appropriate sanctions could be invoked against such a person.
With these arrangements in place, I am confident that any conflict of interest situation arising could be identified and resolved.
As regards Deputy Sargent's question, the Ethics in Public Office Bill makes provision for the confidential disclosure by the holders of designated directorships and positions of employment in public bodies, including health boards, harbour authorities and vocational education committees, of their own interests and those of spouses and children and other connected persons.
