In the confidence in Government motion on 5 November 1992 the Leader of the Labour Party, now Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, said — columns 2312-13 of the Official Report —"In common with a clear majority of this House, the Labour Party have no confidence in this Government, and we will be hoping to see it swept out of office when the vote is called this evening." He went on to state, at column 2313:
For three and a half years, this country has needed grown-up, adult politics. It has needed clear choices, and an opportunity to rally around those choices.
Later in the same column he said:
Instead of grown-up politics, we have had a Government beset by scandal. They have been obsessed with so-called "fundamentals" which have always failed to include the people who elected them. By their behaviour, time and time again, they have cheapened and debased one of the highest callings there is, and dishonoured those who serve the public in political life.
That railroading of the then Government was directed principally at the Fianna Fáil Party, then in Government with the Progressive Democrats. It is the same Fianna Fáil Party now in Government with the Labour Party.
The Ethics in Public Office Bill was described by Deputy Currie last week as a disclosure of interests Bill and in that context only it has the qualified support of this party.
There are a number of serious issues that need to be addressed on Committee Stage and I hope the Minister will take cognisance of them in the course of the debate. I find it arrogant and presumptuous of the Minister to speak of strengthening the foundations of our democracy. I find this phrase particularly nauseating, coming from a Minister whose party, when in Opposition, was more than virulent in condemning low standards in high places, a party that had no sooner joined forces with the party it had originally railroaded when it adopted the same standards it had criticised, and indeed surpassed them in effrontery. In these circumstances the Minister might more appropriately have titled this Bill the "Closing the stable door when the horse has bolted Bill" or the "Gamekeeper turned poacher Bill".
The pretentiousness of the exercise leaves a sour taste in the mouths of the many decent honourable people who come within its scope. Essentially, the Bill aims to visit the sins of the few — all of whom I might add are on the Government side of the House — on the great majority who are sinless. The assumption underlying the Bill is that because a Minister, a Deputy, a civil servant or other official has what is known as a material interest in a particular proposal, his or her attitude to the proposal will be affected by that interest. Many people who come within the scope of this Bill will find that assumption gratuitously insulting and a slur on their integrity and I agree with them. However, this is the philosophy on which the Bill is based and, therefore, it must be unsound. In essence it is taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
The Minister has not been forthright in her approach to the Bill. In her statement she claims that our financial and political lives have become much more complex, necessitating this Bill. To what complexities does she refer? Would it not be more honest and forthright and in keeping with her stated need for open Government to give us the facts — that this Bill is being introduced because of her party's criticism when in Opposition? Her party has succumbed to the temptation to take advantage of its position in Government, appointing cronies and henchmen, winding up with egg on its face and now desperately trying to restore some measure of credibility. That would be a fair if unpalatable approach. Corrective action is clearly needed as a result of abuses, or failure to take action on abuses, by the two parties now in Government.
We are all human and there will be lapses from time to time. None is above reproach — I do not want to point the finger at any individual — but where there is a breach of accepted standards, it is up to those in charge, as in any other organisation, to deal with them. It is the failure on the part of those now occupying the Government benches to take appropriate action where such breaches have occurred and the public reaction to such failures that has necessitated corrective measures. In the political arena there is always the ultimate sanction for those who do not practise what they preach and do not conform to expected norms. They have to face the electorate who will not be fooled for long as the Government members know from the European, urban and by-elections on 9 June. The argument can be made that in the political arena, with the ultimate sanction of having to face the electorate, there is a need for only minimum regulation — leaving it to the good sense of the electorate to deal with abuses, as it has always done effectively in the past.
This brings me to a related point. In support of the Bill the Minister said that, in effect, it will bring this country into line with the practice in many other countries with regard to the disclosure of interests. The Minister did not say however, whether the disclosure of interest is required by statute in those countries. I would like her to respond to that point, by taking a cross section of countries, particularly smallers ones. The Minister should not have swallowed, hook, line and sinker, the practice that applies in other countries. No two countries are the same with regard to attitude, culture and tradition; legislation to the extent that it is needed should be tailored to meet our needs. In this connection I want to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that she has not given any indication whether she considered an alternative approach to that proposed in the Bill to meet the public interest, which is surprising.
I know the Minister and her Labour Party colleagues have been effectively railroaded into introducing this legislation. For example, has the Minister considered whether a non-statutory requirement that particular classes of the type of encompassed in the Bill should place on record with an appropriate authority within their own organisation any interest of theirs that might be regarded by others as prejudicial to the discharge of certain aspects of their work, for example, the Houses of the Oireachtas or the appropriate Minister in the case of staff in the Civil Service, State bodies and so on? We could then make suitable amendments to the prevention of corruption Acts to deal with cases where criminal proceedings might be justified, as proposed in the Bill. Will the Minister respond to this point in her reply?
I do not like the Minister's tunnel vision approach. In considering legislation, it is important to ensure that needs have been examined from all relevant angles and that where it is proposed to introduce legislation, there is no satisfactory alternative to it. In particular, has the Minister considered imposing restrictions as part of the conditions of employment in certain cases rather than governing them by statute which is rigid and inflexible. The Minister said that the objective of the Bill is to ensure that the public is served in the best possible manner by those whom they elect and those chosen to serve them. Has the Minister satisfied herself that this Bill meets these objectives? It is possible that the Bill could have the opposite effect in some instances, for example, by placing severe restraints on public servants. If a higher civil servant in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry or a close relative has a farm would it effectively debar civil servants from advising the Minister on policy changes which might be beneficial to him or her or a close relative? Similarly, in the case of the Department of Finance and the Revenue Commissioners, would civil servants be effectively debarred from recommending budgetary changes that might benefit them? I recognise that what the Bill seeks is that they should disclose a material interest and that in practice this would not debar them from giving such advice. However, will a civil servant not be more circumspect in giving advice, making recommendations or advising on changes in instances such as that where his or her integrity to give impartial and unbiased advice will appear to have been called into question by the provisions of this Bill?
I accept that the Minister and the Labour Party are particularly sensitive at this time because of media reaction, election results and the public odium engendered by their appointments of specialists advisers and so on but it appears unnecessary to go to the lengths the Minister proposes in this Bill on the future of such advisers. He should realise that a provision in the Bill cannot undo the damage her party did to itself by making such an appointment. As soon as you shoot yourself in the foot, the damage is done. That being the case, I suggest the Minister might look soberly at the provision on specialist appointments. What are the thoughts of the Government about the type of person who should be given a specialist appointment? Ministers' requirements in regard to specialist advice may vary, depending on their qualifications and attitudes. I would not like to see the possibility of somebody with a commonsense and a feel for the public good ruled out on the basis of not having a sufficient number of paper qualifications, as seems to be implicit in some of the Minister's proposals here.
What is the position of a civil servant appointed as a specialist adviser to a Minister? Would he or she return to previous employment on the Minister leaving officer or would the Minister be precluded from giving that person out of turn promotion, as happened in the past? I am not advocating a particular course of action but I would like to hear the Minister's view.
The Bill proposes two separate bodies to oversee the proposed legislation, one covering the ordinary Members of the Oireachtas and the other covering Ministers and public servants. The Minister's justification for this is that under the Constitution each House of the Oireachtas regulates its own affairs. Could the Oireachtas not agree to have this aspect of its affairs dealt with by an outside body and so avoid a further proliferation of bodies essentially dealing with the same issue? Obviously I have the utmost respect for the integrity and ability of the members of the proposed commission, but would it not be better from a public confidence view point — with which the Minister seems to be concerned and indeed obsessed — to give the overseeing of this legislation to persons who cannot, in the public mind, be associated in any way with the objectives of the legislation? Perhaps the task could be given to members of the Judiciary. As Deputy Currie pointed out in his contribution they should be brought within the scope of this or corresponding legislation, in regard to their appointment to the Bench. The Minister's proposals envisage annual reports by the proposed Commission although not by the select committees in each House. Why is there a different treatment in this regard? I am opposed to annual reports where reports have to be made in individual cases.
On the definitions in section 2, part I of the Bill, will the Minister indicate whether the reference to the chairman and the deputy chairman of the Houses of the Oireachtas refers to the Ceann Comhairle and Leas-Cheann Comhairle of the Dáil and to the Cathaoirleach and the Leas-Chathaoirleach of the Seanad and, if so, why are they not referred to in these terms in the Bill before the House?
I referred earlier to the provisions for special advisers. The legislation proposes that senior special advisers will be required to undertake not to engage in any other employment which might reasonably be seen as capable of interfering with or being incompatible with the performance by the person of his or her functions as a special adviser. Does this again show the guilt complex of the Government? Surely this is a matter within contracts drawn up between individuals and not for legislation.
Under section 30, a person may be directed to produce to the Committee or Commission any specified document or thing in his or her possession or power. What is the Minister's definition of a "thing"? The section also provides in subsection (9) that sittings of the Committee or the Commission for the purposes of an investigation by it under the Act may be held in private. Surely that should read "shall be held in private" The report issued by the Committee or the Commission, including the findings on the question at issue, should be adequate to satisfy any public unease. If a prosecution follows, it would then take the normal course for such prosecutions.
I notice also that in the First Schedule of the Bill a public body, for the purposes of the Act, shall be a Department of State, the Office of the President, the Office of the Tánaiste, the Office of the Attorney General and some other specified offices such as that of the Ombudsman and the Comptroller and Auditor General. Perhaps I am innocent but it never occurred to me that the Office of the Tánaiste was not a Department of State and that the Tánaiste's office had a separate and distinct existence which would require it to be named specifically in the Bill. Why is this necessary? Is the Tánaiste's office funded in such a way that it does not allow any other holder of that office in future years to transgress the borders of public office as has been alleged about the present Tánaiste?
Much of this Bill is a charade designed to cover up the shenanigans of the Government parties. Essentially what is involved is not more open Government, as the Minister claims, but a covering up of the breaches of public trust which should not have arisen and which could and should have been dealt with by those responsible, without legislation such as this. In trying to recover lost ground, much damage has been done to all those covered by this proposed legislation to make up for the lapses and the wrong-doings of the few. We are being tarred with the same brush. The underlying theory on which this Bill is based is that those covered by it are untrustworthy and will allow personal interests to colour their judgments on matters relating to their public office. That is a false assumption and the Bill based on it is flawed in consequence.
If the Minister wants to strengthen the foundations of our democracy, which I am sure she does before introducing the next stage of this Bill, she should radically amend it, remove the underlying highly objectionable slur, and consider whether an approach on the lines I outlined earlier would be more in tune with what is needed. Nobody objects to a minimal declaration of interests as applies in the case of local authorities and indeed in many other parliaments, but this Bill contains many items that are dangerously nonsensical. The Minister is leading us down a road from which it will be impossible for any ordinary person to come into this House and serve the public under the Constitution and the democratic system which elects them to office.