Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 23 Jun 1994

Vol. 444 No. 3

Ethics in Public Office Bill, 1994: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Before I begin we should establish if there is a quorum of Government Deputies interested in this matter.

I thought the Deputy might do that.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

This Bill has 36 sections and two Schedules. It sets up a number of new procedures and bodies and contains provisions for costs, for the award of costs and for the publication of reports. In every respect it is entirely in keeping with the present Government's mania for bureaucracy and entirely in keeping with the Labour Party's devotion to interfering with everything in sight. Since it has all those features, it is fair to ask if this Bill is really necessary and, looking at it carefully, I have to come to the conclusion that most of it is not. The parts of this Bill that are necessary deal with Ministers and senior officials in the public service and in positions in public companies. The rest of it is unnecessary and ineffective.

In February last year we had a debate in this House on what were then proposals by the Minister of State in relation to ethics in Government. A great many questions were raised during that debate. An examination of the record of that day — volume 426, column 4 — will show that the Minister of State had very few answers to the questions that were raised. I asked her, for example, if she could tell us against what kinds of abuses by Deputies and Senators the proposed measures were intended to guard. I asked if she could indicate in what way Members of the Dáil or Seanad, in their capacities as Members of the Oireachtas, could misuse those offices for personal gain or for the benefit of people on whose behalf they might be acting. Similar questions were put by my colleague, Deputy Michael Noonan, from Limerick East — the real Michael Noonan as we call him on this side of the House. Deputy Richard Bruton made what I thought was a very telling point; he said that the provision for complaints to which the Minister referred on that day and which is now contained in the Bill refers not to complaints about Deputies or Senators misusing their office, having undue influence or making undue or illegal gains in some way, but to cases where Deputies or Senators fail to list some item of their interests deliberately or through error. The complaints procedure in this Bill is not about unethical behaviour on the part of Deputies or Senators, it is about their failure to conform to the requirements of a bureaucratic system, the need for which has not been conclusively demonstrated.

The Minister of State and some of her colleagues on the Government benches pointed out that members of local authorities have to declare their interests in a register, similar to that proposed in this Bill. They had the kindness to point out — although I do not see the relevance of it to this debate — that I probably would not know about this as I had never been a member of a local authority. I do not know what point they hoped to make but I was aware of it. Members of local authorities do not have to provide information for a register of interests of the kind the Minister and her colleagues mentioned on that day. However, she neglected to mention two other vital facts. The first of those vital facts which was conveniently forgotten is that members of local authorities, in that capacity, have some powers which find no parallel in the offices of Members of this House or the Seanad. In the Houses of the Oireachtas we, the Members, take no executive decisions. We pass legislation and vote moneys in the context of framing policy. We have no connection with the implementation of policy in our capacity as Members of these Houses. In many respects we are further away from the execution of policies we adopt than are members of local authorities from the execution of the decisions they make. The parallel is, to say the least, of limited and fairly doubtful value.

The second fact which the Minister and her colleagues failed to mention is that to the extent that there continue to be allegations of unethical behaviour by members of local authorities, the declarations of interests which they are required to make clearly do not prevent these things from allegedly happening. If there were any relevance in mentioning the declaration of interests by members of local authorities in the context of this Bill, it would be simply to make the point that what is proposed in this Bill cannot have an effect against the kind of abuses that such declaration in local authorities seems to be designed to deal with. The more the Minister and her colleagues insist on this, the more they are making the case that what is proposed in this Bill is nonsensical and pointless.

It is hard to conceive of a situation — and I will come back to this again — where a Member of this House could have an improper influence on an executive decision, but we can speculate on how it might happen. It is conceivable that a Member of this House, acting for his or her own personal gain or for the improper gain of some person outside the House, could persuade a member of the Government, a member of the Executive who is involved in making and implementing those decisions, to do something that would be improper. That might happen, but if it did it would require the Minister to sin as well, and we could argue that if we had proper provision to prevent members of the Government from falling into that kind of error that would be all that was required. The Minister of State cannot deny my contention that there is no Member of this House — what this Bill calls "ordinary" Member of this House — or of the Seanad who is in a position himself or herself to directly affect any Executive decision unless a member of the Executive, a Minister or a Minister of State who has some function in the matter, conspires or co-operates in some kind of wrong doing.

In February of last year the Minister of State indicated that she had been inspired at least in part by the system in operation in Australia. I should like to remind her that in the course of the debate that day my colleague, Deputy Noonan, pointed out that if she intended to rely on Australia as an example, it was a bad one because the system in Australia does not seem to work. Up to recently Australian politics were far more corrupt than anything the Minister or her knight in shining armour leader has ever alleged here. If there is a declaration of interest system in Australia it is a good argument for not having one here because it does not make much difference there.

Examples abound of political systems where there is provision for declarations of interest but which witness spectacular allegations of corruption; in some cases there have been socialist parties in power who seem to have participated gleefully in the alleged corruption. Declarations of interest of the kind mooted here, which is a 19th century idea, do not seem to have the effect the Minister and her colleagues claim.

The Minister claimed today that the Bill provides "a framework in which any potential conflict of interest that might arise can be solved". I looked through the Bill to see if I could find anything that would help in resolving a conflict of interest but there is no section that deals with anything or any action that could resolve a conflict of interest. The Minister said, in a most remarkable speech — it has the fingerprints of a media guru — that the Bill "is not about catching politicians up to their tricks". If that is the case what is it about and why are we talking about an ethics in Government Bill? The Minister said it is "a recognition that the financial and political life of this country has become much more complex". I read the phrase several times and I would have to say, bravo, Minister. I am delighted she and her colleagues have found out that the financial and political life of this country has become much more complex. Many of us in this House realised that a long time ago and we did not need to produce a lump of legislative lead, as is this Bill, to come to that conclusion.

Throughout the debate in February of last year and again today the Minister of State, Deputy Fitzgerald, did not give a single example of an abuse by Members of the Dáil or Seanad which this Bill could prevent, not did she signal any abuse to which the provisions of the Bill would even be relevant. I would like her to tell me — maybe she is more ingenious that I am in these matters — in what kinds of abuse I could get involved. I have interests outside this House; I lecture from time to time in the University of Limerick and I carry out consultancy contracts for a firm that is on contract to the EU Commission in Brussels. I would like the Minister to tell me in what way I could misuse my position as a Deputy to favour unjustly the interests of the University of Limerick or the firm that gives me consultancy contracts on trade policy. I cannot figure out what way I could abuse my position as a Deputy in doing those things.

It would not bother me to restate those interests regularly in the House. If we were debating educational issues it would not cost me a thought to stand up and notify the Ceann Comhairle solemnly that I lecture in the University of Limerick or that I carried out a trade policy consultancy for a firm that is on contract to the Commission in Brussels. All the other Members of the House — they might be here in numbers as we might have just had a quorum — would yawn and say, so what? They would ask why I am saying those things because they would know there is nothing I can do as a Member of this House that would unjustly, illegally or reprehensibly favour the people involved. This Bill will add to public debate about the activities of Deputies and Senators in this area but it does not deal with the real matters.

The Minister told us in February last year and again today that issues such as political contributions and so on will be dealt with in separate legislation. The Taoiseach said they will be taken in tandem with this legislation, but there will be a big gap between the taking of this Bill and that legislation. In February last year the Minister said that the heads of this Bill would be before the Government within a couple of weeks, but it has taken nearly a year and a half to publish it. When will we see a Bill dealing with political contributions? That would be a very interesting areas for examination.

It is on the way.

It is almost ready.

I do not know whether the Deputies saw an interview with Mr. Gerard Collins, MEP, at the end of the European election count in Munster, a magnificantly understated interview, in which he made it very clear that he was accusing a fellow candidate in the constituency of Munster of spending a huge amount of money on an election campaign and he was accusing Fianna Fáil headquarters of spending a large amount of money on the campaign in favour of that candidate. As far as we can discern — may be the Minister will inform us on this — a similar procedure was carried out by the Labour Party during the European election campaign in Dublin where large amounts of money were spent on one candidate and a good deal less, if any, on another. That matter is to be dealt with in a separate Bill but I will not hold my breath waiting for that Bill to appear.

Deputy Eamon Walsh of the Labour Party told us in February of last year that the register of Members' interests provided for in the Bill "will help to identify those powerful groups who interfere with the public process". No member of this House needs to be told who the interest groups are. We are innundated with documents, pamphlets and statements from them every day of the week. Any Member of this House could draw up a directory of the interest groups who wish to have an influence on public policy but that is not the problem. There are the golden circles, the purchasers of passports, the the extended family united by ties of blood and politics, the special advisers, drivers, secretaries and all kinds of hangers-on. These people have two things in common: they are involved in unethical behaviour and they are involved with Ministers, not with ordinary Members of the Oireachtas, and that is where they abuse arises.

The Bill requires people to declare these matters but it does nothing to stop unethical behaviour. The only thing that will stop it is a body of Ministers who believe what they say about ethics, who take seriously what they trumpet about ethics in this House and outside it and who regard ethics as more than a matter of platitudes. The Minister said today that lessons have been learned about the way in which appointments of relatives have been handled. She believes the Government has "put those lessons to good use in the changes to procedures and the completely open system for appointments now proposed in this legislation". What a wonderful phrase that is. When we consider that all those people are still in place, we have a true measure of the hypocritical smugness behind that statement.

The Bill contains no provisions to stop other forms of unethical behaviour. There is nothing that would have stopped the Taoiseach from claiming he secured £8 billion in Edinburgh, the Minister of State from claiming to be the Minister for £8 billion, the Tánaiste from maintaining that claim when the rest of us knew it was false, or the Minister of State, the Minister for Finance, the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach from claiming they did not need to make changes in a spurious national plan. That aspect of unethical conduct is totally outside the provisions of this Bill and the Government has done nothing to deal with it.

What I find sinister and cynical about this Bill is that it sets up a commission to administer this piece of political prurience and "peeping Tommery".

Has the Deputy something to hide?

Do not start, Deputy, or I will start a campaign to release the "Northside six" and we will see what the Deputy is made of.

It is the "Northside seven".

The Deputy should not get me going on the ethics of going out to meetings in Dublin Airport and making promises but caving in at the parliamentary party meeting.

Under the Bill a commission will have power to send for persons and documents. I am a member of one of the select committees of the House and its chairman is sitting over there. Since the establishment of the select committees we have been asking that they be given power to send for persons and documents so that we can do the job the House wants us to do, that is, to oversee and examine Government activities and policies. This power is being given to the "peeping Tom" commission but it has not been given to the select committees of this House and joint committees of the Oireachtas that might get somewhere near investigating what the Government is up to. That takes the biscuit for cynicism.

If this Government is interested in ethics it will scrap this Bill and avoid wasting the time of this House with this type of political prurience which is only a mask, a screen behind which to hide its utter abdication of every principle it ever stood for.

I welcome this Bill and compliment the Minister for introducing it. With your permission, Sir, I wish to share my time with Deputy Broughan.

, Carlow-Kilkenny): Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Dukes did not say one word in favour of the Bill or of the principles underlying it. He spent his entire 20 minutes pouring scorn on what we regard as the important principles of the Bill. If he has difficulty with some of the provisions in the Bill, he is free to introduce amendments but he did not indicate that amendments were needed.

Amend the Bill the way the Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) (Amendment) Bill, 1993, was amended — take out the sections. The Bill was gutted.

No wonder the Deputy is on the back benches if that is his attitude to progressive legislation coming before this House. It is unbecoming for a former Opposition leader to be so cynical about legislation and to have nothing positive to say about it.

I am not cynical about the legislation, but I am about this Government. That is a different thing.

I have a great deal of time for Deputy Dukes but his attitude today is extremely disappointing.

This legislation was included in the Programme for Government on the insistence of the Labour Party and a commitment to introduce such a Bill was a central plank of the Labour Party's input into that programme and this legislation is being introduced in the first half of this Government's term of office.

At the start of a midterm review.

We are fulfilling that commitment; in fact, this Bill exceeds what is required. I cannot emphasise sufficiently the importance the Labour Party attaches to this Bill. The people whom the electorate choose to represent them and govern this State must be seen to be above suspicion. There must be a clear separation of their public activity from their private interests. This can best be done by making an annual written statement of personal interests that might conflict with public office.

Increasingly, public representatives live in the glare of the media. We hear of allegations of political abuse, corruption and scandal almost daily somewhere in the world. We have had the Goodman affair with its allegation of political abuse and overtones of financial impropriety, the passports for sale saga accompanied by allegations of political abuse and financial reward. I was delighted to hear the Minister of State say this morning that she would be introducing an important amendment to cover that issue. Let me remind the House that those matters relate to a previous Administration to which the Progressive Democrats, Deputy McDowell's party, was a partner. Regardless of what underpins these allegations they add to public cynicism and sceptism about politicians and the widespread belief that all politicians are on the make. We must demonstrate that we are not.

The politicians I know in the Labour Party are hard working honest people with a genuine desire to help those less well of who see politics as a means of introducing change and improving the quality of life. Having said that this Bill is not about scapegoating or witch hunting but about openness, accountability and bringing trust into politics. It is contributing to the health of our democracy and that is why we, in the Labour Party, were insistent it would be an integral part of the Programme for Government.

The Bill goes beyond the required provisions in the Programme for Government. It establishes a register of interests and of gifts but this extends not only to Members of the Oireachtas but to senior public servants, board members of State companies, ministerial advisers, and includes the publication of all appointments by Ministers. This will ensure they are of a temporary nature.

The procedures are also very strong in ensuring that complaints will be investigated. In the first instance we have the select committees of both Houses of the Oireachtas and then an independent commission of persons of the very highest level comprising the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Ombudsman, the Ceann Comhairle, the Clerk of the Dáil and the Clerk of the Seanad who will ensure that complaints will be throughly investigated and dealt with.

This is the first part of a package of proposals to ensure accountability and openness in Government. Deputy Dukes said there was no reference to the disclosure of public donations to political parties. He knows that an electoral Bill is being drawn up that will cover that area. A Bill on freedom of information is also being drafted and that will emphasise open Government and democratic administration. This is just part of the overall package to ensure that the interests of public representatives are being brought into the public domain where they will be held accountable.

During my perusal of the Bill I focused on section 14, dealing with statements of interest by office holders in relation to performance of certain functions. I was surprised to learn there were distinctions between how the Taoiseach, Ministers, Ministers of State and office holders were dealt with. In other words, the Taoiseach will report to the chairman of the commission, Ministers of Government will report to the Taoiseach and all other office holders will report to the commission. Section 14 (b) needs to be examined again because there is no reference to what the Taoiseach will do. Will he refer any matter that comes to his attention from a Minister or Minister of State to the chairman of the commission? That is not specified in the legislation. We may be creating a merry-go-round without setting up the proper method of dealing with it. I question the need for a distinction in dealing with those three categories of people. I would prefer if they were all dealt with in a similar manner.

The legislation, in its thrust and content, is worthwhile. The taxpayers expect their elected representatives who pass legislation affecting their lives to declare publicly any possible conflict of interest. Listening to the various views from Deputies of the far left, the far right and Deputy Dukes from the somewhat marshmallow centre right, it would appear they do not want this legislation. That leads me to question why they have so many reservations about it.

The reservations are in all the empty seats.

Why is that the case? If the legislation contains some faults, surely the Opposition should identify those faults and suggest amendments. The Opposition has been singularly lacking in identifying any provisions its Members intend to seek to amend. From beginning to end they have engaged in a knocking exercise which leads me to suspect that many on the Opposition benches do not want this legislation. They are certainly not seeking to improve it.

This legislation is necessary. Other democracies have no difficulty with similar legislation. We have no difficulty in having to declare our interests at local authority level and why the principle should be opposed to such a degree in our national parliament is beyond me. This legislation is necessary for parliamentarians and particularly so because the media is so often critical of politicians. Our democracy is being scrutinised in the full glare of the media, particularly our politicians, and we must ensure we enshrine in our legislation a set of principles so that the public will see that we are not on the make and that we are involved in politics in the interests of the people and the country.

I welcome the Bill which will lead to greater openness, transparency and confidence in Irish public life. The Bills sets out clear and fair ground rules for identifying and resolving conflicts between public and private interests.

The difficulty of resolving the question of public and private interests is as old as the history of government. Almost 3,000 years ago, the philosopher Plato wrestled with this problem and in his famous Republic he came up with a slightly bizarre solution whereby the philosopher kings of the day were not allowed to rule until they were 40, they were not allowed to marry and they were not allowed to have any business interests. Hence we have our famous platonic relationships today.

That was obviously a harsh measure but an examination of the recent history of other democracies, will show there is a great need for these basic ground rules. Over the past two centuries most modern democracies, such as the United States and Britain, emerged from eras of pork barrel, Tammany Hall politics, and the Tory and Whig oligarchies in Britain who rewarded their main followers when they came to power by sustaining them and setting them up in business.

Other democracies today have recognised the necessity for such legislation. In Washington, for example, there are approximately 100,000 lobbyists whose sole job is to try to influence public administration and to persuade the Senators and Congressmen to follow a particular course of action. Despite the fact that the United States has long had a register of interests, one of its most distinguished politicians, the chairperson of the House Ways and Means Committee, is under investigation because of the enormous influence of lobbying.

Throughout the recent history of the United Kingdom there has been a remarkable correlation between people leaving high office under Tory governments and their immediate appointments to major positions in the private sector. Indeed, Britain is interesting in this regard and a recent article in The Independent gave a full and clear picture of the interests of MPs. The headline in that paper referred to the fact that most MPs have some interests which are worthy of declaration and which the British public feels it should know about.

In Italy recently a constitutional crisis was provoked because the interface between politics and business became hopelessly intermeshed. There was virtually a peaceful revolution there and the whole system of government was changed. One of Italy's political parties — a sister party of Deputy Dukes' party — was swept overwhelmingly from office. Across many democracies there is a clearly perceived need for the type of legislation which Minister Fitzgerald has brought before the House today.

The European Parliament, to which we have worked so hard to elect members recently, also has a register of interests and soon we will be able to examine it to learn of the interests of the 15 new Irish MEPs.

The conservative parties here have always had difficulty in resolving the ongoing interface between business and politics. A member of the Progressive Democrats rubbished the Bill this morning, saying it would be a mere prophylactic, yet that party received enormous support from the business sector on its foundation and continues to do so. As my colleague, Deputy Costello, said, the majority of TDs must live on their basic Dáil salary and will have very little to declare in the register of interests. While there is little scope in parliamentary politics for earning large amounts of money in other areas the evidence of the past 30 or 40 years is that this type of legislation is necessary. It is also a realisation of the Labour pledge in the Programme for Government, the first part of a three part programme which this Minister is bringing forward. The first of those is this Bill. It will be followed shortly by the electoral Bill which will deal with the funding of political parties and cap the amount of money to be spent on elections. Finally there will be a freedom of information Bill.

Part II of the Bill deals with the disclosure of interests by Deputies and Senators. Section 7 requires us to disclose where we would have a conflict of interest in something we were speaking about. I welcome that and the mechanism whereby the Ceann Comhairle's and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's office will enforce the regulations in part.

I welcome Part III where the interests of Ministers, Ministers of State and office holders will be clearly delineated and the fact that we will know the connected persons through the confidential register. I also welcome the Minister of State's comments today that she will bring in amending legislation to deal with the case where one Minister's decision could materially benefit people connected with another Minister. The comments in relation to gifts are also welcome.

An ongoing problem occurs where a person who held a high office in the public service leaves and operates in the same area in private business. We should look at the area of senior office holders assuming important positions in private business.

I welcome the provisions in relation to special advisers and agree with the Minister of State that the cabinet system is an effective one. Up to 60 per cent of the Programme for Government has been or is in the process of being delivered. The 15 programme managers deserve a great deal of credit for that achievement and I welcome the transparency that will apply.

This legislation is necessary and will bring about the desired transparency in public life. The public should know what our private interests are so that we may always act in the public interest.

In the last Dáil session the Taoiseach promised 14 times that the ethics Bill would be published at an early date and it has now finally emerged. As the Minister of State said, it is about building blocks. She also said we cannot legislate for morality and no matter what rules exist people will not behave properly if they do not want to do so.

There must be something wrong with the method of producing amendments or writing sections into the Bill if, after such a long delay the Government has failed to produce the wording that relates to the benefit that can accrue from one Minister to another if the action does not involve a Cabinet decision. If this is central to what goes on in public life it should have been included.

Much of this has to do with rumour and reputation. This Bill did not begin 3,000 years ago but when the danger was presented to former Deputy Charles Haughey who, when he got out of his car anywhere in the country, was rumoured to have just bought a hotel, a public house or 200 acres of land.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share