Vol. 443 No. 7
6 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the changes, if any, he proposes to make to the guidelines issued to Ministers and Ministers of State on taking office regarding their involvement in firms or business concerns in which they or their families have a financial involvement in view of the controversy surrounding the business migration scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ministers are informed on taking office of the general principle that they should not engage in any activities that could reasonably be regarded as interfering or being incompatible with the duties of their offices.
The Deputy will be aware that the Ethics in Public Office Bill, 1994, makes provision for the comprehensive statutory disclosure by Ministers of their own interests and those of spouses, children and other connected persons. Among the interests to be disclosed will be any shareholdings, bonds or debentures, or other such investments in companies, enterprises or undertakings. Any directorships or shadow directorships, as defined by the Companies Acts, would also have to be disclosed.
I see these provisions as complementing existing arrangements governing conflicts of interest which are clearly set out for Ministers on assuming office. The Government is satisfied that, between the Bill and the existing long-standing guidelines, the provisions in this area are more than adequate.
The question relates to the operation of the guidelines on the business migration scheme. Has the Taoiseach a beneficial interest in C & D Foods which was the subject of this controversy?
I hold a 41 per cent interest in C & D Foods. I have made my position in C & D Foods crystal clear since the first day I took over as Leader of Fianna Fáil.
I am concerned that this matter is being personalised.
It has to be.
Regarding the statement on the record of the House of 9 March last in which the Taoiseach told me that Ministers are required to draw the attention of Government to any matter in which they have a beneficial interest, may I ask the Taoiseach if this was done in the case of the investment under the business migration scheme in this company which you wish me not to refer to?
Everybody is well aware of the interest I hold in C & D Foods. I relinquished all my directorships, as is my wont, on taking office. I carried out all my obligations as Taoiseach and other Ministers have done exactly the same.
Having regard to the fact that the decision in question conferred a benefit on the family business of the Taoiseach, may I ask him again if he drew the attention of the Ministers making the decision to his interest in the company in question?
It has been made clear that the situation in this area is the responsibility of a particular Minister who made his decision in this case on all the information available to him. This issue was not a subject for Government decision. If Deputy Rabbitte is pushing out the boat on this matter perhaps he will tell us if a family business must be discriminated against because some member of the family is a Member of this House. The scheme is available to everybody in the country and no discrimination should exist as long as everybody complies with their obligations.
The Chair must express concern in respect of accusations by innuendo or otherwise made in the House, and indeed outside the House, against Members of the House. I have always said if charges are to be made they should be made in a more formal manner by way of substantive motion. I am always concerned about charges made by innuendo. This is not a court of law and if there are charges to be made, let it be done in accordance with the procedures of the House.
I am merely trying to elicit information. I do not believe that family businesses of any member of Government ought to be discriminated against merely because a beneficiary happens to be in Government. Since there are guidelines requiring Ministers to draw the attention of Government to any matter in which they have a beneficial interest or where the family has a beneficial interest, may I ask the Taoiseach, as Head of Government, if he drew the attention of the Ministers in question to the fact that he is a beneficiary of the company in question?
Everybody in the country knows I am a shareholder in C & D Foods.
That is not an answer.
All obligations on me and on Ministers in this or any other transaction have been fully complied with. Perhaps Deputy Rabbitte or Members who try to deny that this is an excellent scheme and to damage it would say to the taxpayer that this amount of capital should be raised by, say, a business expansion scheme which would cost the taxpayer £500,000. Let us have all the facts.
I share the view of Deputy Rabbitte and the Taoiseach that no Member should be treated in an unfair manner in relation to any family business. However, will the Taoiseach agree that the guidelines outlining what might be reasonably regarded as being in conflict with the public office held should be adhered to? As that is the situation at present, as the Government takes such a serious view of a potential conflict and the fact that under the new Bill it is proposing prison sentences and other heavy penalties, will the Taoiseach agree it is disingenuous to suggest that he was not aware that a very substantial investment was made in a company which he had built up before he became a Minister and Taoiseach and which has remained in the family? Would it not be reasonable for a member of the family to say: "Great news, we have got an investment of over £500,000"? Is the Taoiseach telling the House that no member of the family, perhaps over a cup of tea or in other circumstances, alerted him to the fact that such a substantial investment in the company was——
Members should have regard to the strong feelings of the Chair and all my predecessors in such matters that we should be very slow to reflect upon the business or family interests of any Member. If we are to do so it should be done formally, as I outlined in recent times, by formal substantive motion and not by innuendo. It is unfair.
Hear, hear.
To put an end to this controversy — to bring it to a head, will the Taoiseach now open the files to the House, to a Committee of the House——
I cannot permit the Deputy to attack the family of a Member in this fashion.
I am asking the Taoiseach if he will open the files to the House.
The Deputy might proceed in another way.
Is it in order to ask the Taoiseach if he will open the files to other Members of the House, as he has for the Tánaiste, so that this matter can be treated at arm's length by select committee or otherwise.
We are having a wide extension of the question before us.
Perhaps the Taoiseach would reply.
Finally on this matter, all obligations by myself and the Ministers concerned have been totally and absolutely carried out in this regard. This is a good scheme; it promotes investment in this country and no one should believe that it is anything but that. If people believe that the scheme should not be continued they should come out and say so——
That is not the problem.
——but to engage in innuendo is unfair. If people have something to say they should say it. The people who invest money in this country are entitled to respect and not to have their names denigrated and dragged through the mud by those who want to promote jobs here. Indeed, people who carry out confidential business — and this has always been recognised by this House — will be given the protection of confidentiality and treated appropriately. We must not project the image that we do not welcome people wishing to invest in this country. We must not be hypocritical; we either want investment or we do not. This scheme and the ethics Bill will come before the House and Members will have every opportunity to make whatever changes they feel are required but no one has been more forthcoming than I in relation to my business associations, all I own and what I do not own. There have not been many instances where a Taoiseach was involved heavily in business before coming into this House or happens to be involved in business. Perhaps that situation needs further clarification and more guidelines, but for Deputies to come into this House and throw innuendo around like snuff at a wake is doing no service to investment here. If Members have something to say it should be said in the open where it can be answered.
Mr. G. Mitchell rose.
I am now bringing this matter to finality.
May I put a final supplementary to the Taoiseach? He asked us to say what we believe.
I will hear a brief and relevant supplementary from the Deputy and Deputy Rabbitte but the time for dealing with the Taoiseach's questions is now clearly exhausted.
Will the Taoiseach agree that the concern expressed by the public, reflected in the fact that the Tánaiste sent for the files, should not be dismissed in the House as innuendo when other Members of the House carry out their duty and wonder whether there is smoke without fire? If there is no fire, let us see the files. They should be opened to other Members through a select committee.
The Deputy should proceed with this matter in another way.
The Taoiseach should not hide behind allegations that are not being made.
I am calling Deputy Rabbitte for a final brief and relevant question.
Will the Taoiseach agree it is a fair summary to say that he did not bring this matter to the attention of the other Ministers concerned because he felt that everybody knew about his interest in the company in question? Is the Taoiseach saying that the Government does not propose to amend the ethics Bill, as he calls it, although I understand the Tánaiste has promised that the manifest deficiencies in the Bill — having regard to the incident of the passports affair — require amendment and that the Government will bring forward such amendment if necessary?
That is not a fair assessment of the situation and Deputy Rabbitte knows that quite well. It would be a fair assessment to look at the support that the general public gave to the people who raised this issue in the election, the straight talkers and everybody else.
Answer the question.
It is a fair assessment to examine how the particular Deputies who made this an issue in the election fared subsequently.
No, Sir, answer the question.
That is a dreadful reflection on the Labour Party.
It is not a fair assessment to draw one's own conclusions but I will say that there is a lack of recognition of what management and shareholders do in a company——
The Taoiseach is running a country, not a company.
I am not running a company when I am carrying out my business here and I never have done——
That is the point.
——and nobody will ever be able to say that to me. It is the business of management to arrange financing and loans for a company. It is not the business of shareholders and never has been.
We now proceed to priority questions for which 20 minutes only are provided in Standing Orders.
