Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 29 Jun 1994

Vol. 444 No. 6

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

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

Mr. E. Kenny

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.

Mr. N. Ahern

In her speech the Minister stated that this is probably one of the most significant Bills the Government will bring forward. The Minister has shown great interest in it since the election in November 1992 but I would not regard this legislation as earth shattering. I agree there should be some regulations requiring Members to declare their private interests, particularly where it might be perceived that the conduct of politicians is being influenced by those interests.

I agree with the idea behind the Bill. I am happy that the annual declaration of interests is now reasonable and that the more ridiculous suggestions put forward by various people in the early days of the Government have been set aside. This will be worthwhile legislation if it encourages openness and trust in our democratic system and if it is perceived by the electorate to make the system more transparent.

Recently politicians have not been very favourably perceived. Many people engage in mindless criticism of politicians. We certainly do not deserve that and I doubt whether the attitude can be changed by legislation. However, I wish the Minister well in her campaign.

The negative perception of politicians has been helped in part by a minority of people in the media who seem to be on a continuous witch hunt. This legislation, rather than being seen as the first step towards changing the existing perception of politicians, might open up a new campaign which will result in politicians coming under more scrutiny in the future. The first issue of Iris Oifigiúil will be eagerly sought by many but I hope whatever interest it generates will be short term and in time the novelty will wear off.

A register of interests by elected Members is not exactly a new feature. Many countries have such a register as a standard feature of their democracy. Indeed, local authorities always had such a register of interests. The public has a reasonable right to know the private interests of politicians which might perhaps influence decisions. If one declares an interest at local authority level one is supposed to opt out of speaking and voting on the issue concerned. If that applied in the Dáil it would cause a problem if the Government had a small majority.

I do not think any Member ever came into the House hoping to influence policy making for his or her own benefit. The vast majority of politicians enter politics because they have something to offer. It would be foolish to say no politician was ever tempted or succumbed to temptation. We would all like to feel we are pure and beyond temptation but the real test arises when the opportunity is presented. There are people in every walk of life who fall and the regulations for entry into public life are not so strict that we could say with certainly no one who felt like that ever slipped through the net.

The Bill lays down rules for behaviour. Standards are ingrained in us. It is difficult and awkward to legislate by laying down rules. If a person needs to look at the rules he or she is already in trouble. There may be cases where no rule is broken but the action engaged in might leave a bad taste in the mouth.

I would like the Minister to amend the ad hoc declaration. There should be some less public way of declaring an interest. If it is to be printed in the Order Paper on a daily basis it would open up a new form of journalism. Each newspaper could nominate a journalist to look at the Order Paper every day.

A declaration of interests is made in other countries but it has not succeeded in avoiding scandals. Rules and regulations are of some benefit but they are not the whole answer. The Minister mentioned the passports issue and advisers. To some extent we seem to be making up the Bill as we go along and taking on board issues which have surfaced recently. Are we trying to cure a common cold when there is a potential epidemic which has not come to our notice?

Advisers are covered by the Bill but when they leave their positions they take a lot of information with them. There is no legislation governing this aspect. It was mentioned last week that the TEAM unions wanted to see the LRC report but it was felt there was something confidential in it which they should not see. Yet many people had possession of that information, including ex-TEAM managers working in competitor companies. At the committee meeting yesterday unions and management were accompanied by consultants. Many people have this information. Sometimes I wonder about rules and regulations. I would like to see something in place which would debar an adviser from being involved in certain business interests for a specified number of months after they leave their post.

The Minister said that, in essence, the Bill asks politicians to declare those interests which could potentially influence their decisions. The Bill is about income, shares, directorships, property, gifts and so on. They are all material things but the title of the Bill is the Ethics in Public Office Bill. Why was the Bill not called registration of interests Bill? Surely "ethics" should cover more than material goods. If we want politicians to declare interests which could potentially influence their decisions we should extend the Bill to cover their views on social issues. For example, in discussing homosexuality, divorce and abortion should there not be a regulation requesting politicians to declare an interest in these matters? The Minister used the word "ethics" in the title and I think she was going beyond directorships and shares yet no section in the Bill deals with the issues to which I referred.

We are all conditioned by our backgrounds and many people might have entered politics in order to influence certain decisions and social issues. Politicians who are members of organisations whose express policy and purpose is to change the ethos, culture or social habits of society should have to declare such membership. I am thinking of organisations such as International Planned Parenthood.

Miss Harney

Opus Dei.

Mr. N. Ahern

Declaring that one is a member of such organisations is far more important than declaring if one has £10,000 or £15,000 worth of shares in a public company. Such a number of shares would not give one a real say in a company whereas membership of an organisation would mean one is a zealous advocate of one's cause. I am surprised that the Minister has not looked at this area since she used the word "ethics".

Before I entered the House I had the perception that politicians mixed business and politics. I worked in CIE and one member of the Oireachtas was chief executive of the transport organisation which was openly lobbying for changes in the Road Passenger Act at the time. Workers in CIE used to talk about this person who seemed to be very influential in his political party which was promoting the same views as his organisation. He was supposed to be on a salary of £26,000 and had the use of a company car, which was envied by many workers. He openly pushed the views of his organisation through his political party. I, therefore, welcome the provisions in relation to political lobbyists. We can only wait to see the impact of these provisions because many people who receive money are not as open as this man in acting as a lobbyist.

It is not proper that a Member who belongs to the legal profession should be seen to be suing the State on behalf of a client or representing the State. Reference has been made to a case involving Dublin Corporation where a politician who had an interest in a legal firm was seen to be generating legal business through his political contacts. When our constituents have problems we make phone calls, write letters and table motions at local authority meetings. The perception was that instead of following the normal procedures this individual would institute an action against the corporation. This was not looked on favourably.

I welcome the Bill and am glad that some of its more extreme provisions have been dropped. I hope it will be a success. I do not think it will improve people's perception of politicians overnight but I hope I am proved wrong. Regardless of what we do, some people will believe what they want to and we can only pitch our case at reasonable people. It is in all our interests that we try to improve the level of respect for politicians. Sometimes we are our own worst enemies — we cannot resist the opportunity to score a few cheap political points against one another. We are also greatly affected by public opinion and tend to be over-correct. For example, yesterday when one half of the workforce took the day of work and the other half took the afternoon off, the business of the House was kept going during the match. This did nothing to improve people's opinion of us. At times it is better to stand up and do what is right and proper instead of running scared.

I was surprised that some Ministers were so upset at the suggestion that the only reason they were going to America was to see the match and not to do business that they cancelled their trips. While most Irish fans paid their way to America, some people got freebies of one description or another. We will pay for their trips when we buy the products of the companies who sent them. Regardless of whether they saw the match, Ministers would have done more meaningful work during their time in America. We should not run scared at every criticism. We must work hard at improving our image and reputation, pitch our case at reasonable people and ignore the begrudges.

Miss Harney

I agree with the points made by Deputy Ahern about yesterday's match. No politician will admit that he or she did not watch the match, yet collectively we did not have the courage to suspend the sitting of the House. I may be as much at fault as anybody else — I assumed the sitting would be suspended. I also agree that the Bill should more accurately be called the register of interests Bill. The long title, which details the purpose of the Bill, spells out clearly that this is what the Bill is about. To a large extent the Bill in its title and in much of what it seeks to do is very much a cosmetic exercise, a face mask. There is an assumption that once the Bill is on the Statute Book people will no longer have to wrestle with their conscience and the Labour Party in particular will be able to exonerate itself from many of the decisions with which it has been associated in recent times.

The Bill is based on a false premise. One cannot legislate for ethics or good behaviour. The introduction of legislation of this kind will not make a dishonest politician honest and will not do anything to end public cynicism about our political system. I will refer to this point in greater detail later.

I welcome some of the provisions of the Bill and support the idea of a declaration of public interests. In the main it is those who have nothing to hide, those who are honest, whose privacy will be invaded by such a declaration. Nonetheless I welcome the provision. As a single person, I believe the Bill discriminates against married couples. If a single person lives with somebody and has children by them the children will be covered but the person with whom they live, who is not a spouse in the strict legal sense, will not be covered under the legislation. I make that point in passing as our society has changed enormously.

The low public esteem in which politicians are held is very worrying and dispiriting. Politician-baiting is clearly set to continue; it is a national pastime, almost a legal blood sport. To a large extent the reason people hold us in low public esteem is due to us. Many believe that most people are in politics only for what they can get out of it, that we are all the same. In my experience the vast majority of people who enter public life do so because they want to serve the public. That sense of public service commitment also exists to a large extent in the public service. Many of our senior and very lowly paid public servants would be much more handsomely rewarded if they were to take up comparable positions in the private sector. Yet they stay in the public sector out of a strong sense of duty and commitment to serve the public.

There is this strong sense of commitment in this House and in the country and I find it very dispiriting that so few people believe this. When I was involved in setting up a new party I found it very difficult to encourage some professional people to counterance a career in politics. Many refused because of the low rate of remuneration for the job — we are badly paid and overworked — and the general nature of politics. To a large extent this is our fault: we are afraid to pay ourselves appropriately. As I said on many occasions, pay peanuts and you get monkeys. We have too many politicians, but they are underpaid for the job they are expected to do. We bring that odium on ourselves.

We have also failed to tackle the shortcomings in the system, beginning with the Dáil. The Government has committed itself to spending £10 million to improve facilities for the Oireachtas. I support this necessary development but we could bring about much more effective reform if we spent a few hours dealing with the procedures of this House instead of spending this £10 million. That money, although it is important and necessary, like all the facilities, will do nothing to improve the workings of the Dáil or Seanad unless we change the procedures. Is it not a farce that current issues cannot effectively be raised in this House and that the Taoiseach will not, and is not expected to, answer questions unless he is given three days' notice, except in very urgent circumstances when Private Notice Questions are allowed? There is no accountability. The procedures and the way we do our business are not professional or modern and contribute to public cynicism.

The rigid Whip system is also bad for politics and I spoke about this very recently. I agree with some of what Deputy Noel Ahern said a few moments ago although I will approach the matter from a different perspective. There is nothing more demoralising than Deputies having to vote against their consciences or sacrifice their careers, effectively, that is the choice they are given. I am not talking about economic issues or Northern Ireland, I am talking about issues connected with what are broadly regarded as private morality questions, issues of conscience and religion. It is bad for politics and politicians to continue to operate such a rigid system. Many people feel degraded and their self esteem is eroded when they must walk through those lobbies and vote against something they believe to be wrong. Even when we had the vote on hare coursing, on a simple issue like that, parties could not bring themselves to allow their members a free vote. Even if the Government had been defeated would it matter? Would it not be far more important to have a healthy, democratic system, open and honest debate and not to be afraid to face up to the issues squarely? These are among the issues politicians must tackle if we want the public to have regard for us and to believe that this is an ethical and honourable profession. No amount of legislation will change that.

There was a reference in the debate last week to the culture of certain parties. It would be wrong of me to talk about that because it is not appropriate. I would prefer to talk about the culture in our society which believes that if you know the right people you will always get the favour, that to get on in life you have to go along with certain things, that is the way business is done. Indeed if you raise questions about these things you are considered holier than thou. Quite honestly, I am tired reading editorials and journalists' comments to the effect that those of us who believe that standards in public life are important or that there is a difference between what is legal and what is right, are holier than thou and that we should cop on to ourselves. I will not be intimidated by abuse like that. Yes, we would prefer popularity to contempt. Equally we have a duty to highlight what is wrong and render people accountable. It is all about making the Government of the day accountable to the Oireachtas. I see that as my first duty and will not be put off simply because some people might not like it.

We tolerate a code of practice in politics and public life generally that would not be acceptable in most democracies in the western world. People have resigned and been hounded out of office in many other countries for misdemeanours more minor than things that happened here over a considerable length of time. That has to do with what I call the culture in our society, what is and is not acceptable. There is a general view that it is all right if you are not caught, it is acceptable if people can get away with bluff and bluster. I do not share that view and it is a pity it is current in society. I do not necessarily blame the media because they and the political system are all part of the culture that exists in this country.

I believe in more openness and accountability and in the commitment in the Programme for Government which said:

It is the Government's aim to restore confidence in the democratic process by encouraging greater openness and participation at all levels by improving public accountability, transparency and trust and by ensuring the highest standards in public life.

Unfortunately, before the ink had dried a Kremlin-style battalion of advisers of all kinds was recruited, by the Labour Party in particular, costing £2 million per annum. We need outside advisers that is good for Government and for the public service, but the volume of advisers recruited by the Government would make many larger Governments look very weak.

In fairness to the Minister of State she said in her introductory remarks last week that there were lessons to be learned from the manner in which those advisers were recruited. They all seemed to be either members of the Labour Party or relatives of Labour Party Ministers. That has not happened before, certainly not on that scale. However, the Minister was very coy when she spoke about learning lessons because not long ago, in April, it was announced that a former RTE journalist and press officer for the Labour Party would work as the Minister's press officer but that, in the meantime, she would work for one of the Labour Party candidates in the European elections. When I read that I wondered whether the Minister sponsoring this Bill had learned the lessons she claimed should have been learned.

If I might quote the religious cliché, there is a difference between prayer and doing good deeds. Prayer alone will not result in our salvation; we need to do good deeds as well and make the rhetoric a reality, yet on so many occasions that has not been the case.

When launching the Bill the Tánaiste spoke about the public having a right to know. I agree but the public has not been given that right by the Tánaiste, the man who was going to bring trust into politics. I will give a couple of examples of where the ethics in public office, which this Bill is supposed to be about, have not been practised and where openness and the public's right to know have not been honoured.

Take the current issue of the appointment of the next President of the European Commission. The public have not been told why the Government vetoed the appointment of Mr. Peter Sutherland and effectively prevented him from having any chance of becoming the President of the European Commission. I know, and most people here know, that there was a great chance that, if his name had been on the table in Corfu, Mr. Peter Sutherland would have been an acceptable compromise candidate. There was nobody against him except his own Government, his own country. I do not merely advocate his appointment because he is Irish, although I think that is important, we are a small country on the periphery of Europe at a time when enormous challenges face the Community. In the main I advocate him because of his calibre, his commitment to Europe and his record in previous portfolios, that of Commissioner for Competition which he held formerly and his present post as Director-General of GATT. Those are the main reasons he would have been an excellent choice as the forthcoming President of the European Commission. He would have had great status and clout, and have been a great ambassador for Ireland. In political terms he would have done the equivalent of what the Irish soccer team are doing for us, very successfully, in the United States. The Tánaiste has not told us the truth about that, he has not ensured that the public has a right to know. For example, did foreign Ministers communicate with the Tánaiste, officially or unofficially, and say they would be prepared to support the candidacy of Mr. Peter Sutherland? Why has the Tánaiste been so silent about this matter in recent weeks? Have we not a right to hear from him? If the Tánaiste was in my position he would be assailing the Government of the day for its shortcomings — he was never slow at doing so — and we gave a right to know.

The public also have a right to know what happened at the Edinburgh Summit and the famous £8 billion but were never told. The public had a right to know before the European elections where the cutbacks would be implemented in the National Development Plan but were not told. The public had a right to know things about the passport affair with which I now want to deal in the context of what is legal and right, and there is a difference. The Minister for Justice said in this House — I want to quote her exact words because it is important: "There was nothing underhand, this was an ordinary transaction." I challenge that statement, it was not an ordinary transaction. There are only 20 such applications a year. Is it not extraordinary that one such application should benefit the family business of the Taoiseach? I do not think that is an ordinary matter. The Minister for Justice told the House that, to qualify, there had to be a permanent investment, a commitment to the country and residency here for a considerable period. No such criteria were honoured. It was a soft loan of £1.1 million at a 5 per cent interest rate. There was no residency here. It was not a permanent investment. All the criteria the Minister for Justice told the House were necessary were broken and yet she said it was not underhanded or extraordinary. The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Spring, on 1 June 1994 on the same matter said that the criteria excluded any soft loan but included a residency requirement. Yet, a few days later, even though it was a soft loan and there was no residency he told us the matter was properly handled because he had looked at the files.

How can anybody believe in somebody who can change their tune so much about something that is so fundamental? As politicians we must give example. The Taoiseach was the biggest shareholder in that company, the greatest beneficiary of that soft loan. It is not extraordinary that a colleague of the Taoiseach meets a man he never met before and is able to give a character reference and say he will invest in a company in the midlands that will create jobs — a criteria for the passport under the business migration scheme — and yet he did not know where the investment would take place and he said he never asked. It is difficult to accept all of that is true. I am not suggesting people are telling lies but I am saying it was no ordinary matter. It was an extraordinary matter where one Minister was able to do something to help another; where one Minister told us it was discussed at Cabinet and a former Minister said it was not or vice versa and the Tánaiste was able to say the whole affair was properly handled. Those kinds of decisions bring politics into disrepute.

I am concerned that we create a society where fair play operates and where all people have the same entitlement to compete. The public tendering system that operates here is not fair. I tabled a parliamentary question yesterday on the Tallaght Hospital and the subcontract element of that hospital. I am not happy with what I hear about it. A contract worth almost £4 million, the biggest single contract ever in its field, has been awarded to a company and I believe the proper procedures have not been in place. Were the procedures followed to ensure that the successful tenderers have their tax affairs and company registration office filing requirements in order? What procedures were followed to ensure that the successful tenderers had a profitable trading record and how many years were investigated? Have any of the successful tenderers received, in the last five years, special mitigation of tax liabilities because they were not able to pay their tax? What procedures were followed to ensure that the successful tenderers have sufficient experience and competent staff to ensure they can undertake and complete the relevant contract? Are the financial resources of all the successful tenderers sufficiently adequate and financially secure to ensure they are capable of undertaking and completing the contract?

The greatest level of public disquiet exists in the award of public contracts. In the Dáil on 3 March 1994 my colleague, Deputy Rabbitte, asked a question of the Minister for Finance on the Kentz Corporation, a company which owes £11 million to the Revenue Commissioners, a company that had a tax clearance certificate and was able to tender for public works. The Revenue Commissioners acquiesced in the appointment of an examiner even though there would have been a preferential creditor had there been merely a receiver. Various questions were asked. The Minister, in reply, said that, because of confidentiality, he would not be able to give any answer, that we are not entitled to answers unless we are asking a question on behalf of the company. We are not entitled to ask questions on behalf of the taxpayer and the public. The Minister's answer that day sums up the type of cynicism that most people feel about politics. They have a view that if things go wrong there will be no answers, no transparency or openness.

I challenge the Minister and the Tánaiste. They can do more for politics and for ethics in public office by having transparency and openness and by telling people what is going on. I look forward to the freedom of information legislation. We do not need freedom of information legislation if Ministers adopt that attitude. It has already been established at the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Processing Industry that if Dáil questions were answered we would not need many of these inquiries and tribunals. In a democracy debate and openness are important. In a democracy Ministers should be accountable and should give answers because we all hold office on behalf of the public. That has not happened and that is why I find it so difficult to accept that the culture referred to earlier is not still rampant in all sections of the Government as well as a reluctance to give information.

On the passport issue I recall hearing representatives of the Labour Party say: "It happened before we went into office". During the presidential election when a particular matter arose, even though it happened eight years earlier, the Labour Party was first to put down a motion of no confidence in the Government. The time factor was not relevant then and should not be relevant now. The only reason it is not relevant now is because it is in Government. If the rhetoric is not made reality this Bill, and similar Bills, rather than reduce public cynicism in politics and public service here will increase it. That will have enormous consequences for all of us and our democratic institutions.

Mr. Bree

I wish to share my time with Deputy Kemmy.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sure that is satisfactory and agreed.

Mr. Bree

When the Labour Party decided to enter into a partnership Government with Fianna Fáil one of our principal objectives was to restore confidence in the democratic process by encouraging greater openness and participation at all levels, by improving public accountability, transparency and trust and by ensuring the highest standards in public life.

In line with our commitment to open Government and transparency in Government actions, we ensured that proposals to enact an ethics in public office Bill, a register of Members' interests and a similar register of interests for senior civil servants, special advisers etc. would be included in the Joint Programme for a Partnership Government. Despite opposition, and the whingeing from those who should know better, despite the many and varied interests who would see such legislation as a threat, Labour in Government is delivering on its commitments and the Ethics in Public Office Bill is another step in restoring confidence in the democratic process.

Down through the years, but particularly during the past two decades, there has been growing concern among the public about the activities of numerous business interests and their possible connections with politicians and political parties. While there may not have been any hard evidence to suggest that some politicians were abusing their positions, there is definitely a public perception that a number of politicians worked hand in glove with certain commercial and financial interests over the years at the expense of the public good.

I am amused that some politicians were initially opposed to this legislation. We were told there was no need for such ethics legislation in Ireland. We were told it reflected badly on this House and its Members. Indeed, it was suggested that Irish politicians were incorruptible and when one entered this House one entered the isle of saints and scholars. However, those of us who live in the real world know better. The great majority of people who enter public life are honest and decent but there will always be some with their own agenda who have little or no interest in the public good. We must recognise that possible conflicts of interests can arise between the private interests of some people in senior public office or employment and indeed the public interest. In such situations, it is vital to public confidence and trust that people working on their behalf put the public interest first.

This Bill will bring real benefits to the Dáil and Seanad by providing for greater openness as regards business interests held by Members. Disclosure of interest, by all Deputies and Senators in a public register and the disclosure of certain private interests will enable the public to see the clear separation of public and private interests. The Bill adopts a particularly firm approach in ensuring the careful separation of private and public interests of office holders and the formal recording of any instances where conflicts of interests may arise. This is done by imposing obligations on Ministers and Ministers of State in addition to those for ordinary Members. These requirements are far reaching and comprehensive. They address family interests, conflicts of interests in performance of ministerial functions, gifts and special advisers. In addition to the annual public statement of their interests, office holders must provide a confidential statement of those interests of a spouse or child, of which they are aware, and which could materially influence them in their work.

These statements will be provided to the independent commission which will oversee the implementation of key aspects of the Bill. Any gift over £500 given to an office holder, spouse or child by virtue of ministerial office will become the property of the State. The Bill also proposes far reaching guidelines on the provision of property or services free or below cost to an office holder, spouse or child arising from ministerial office.

All Ministers and Ministers of State will have to lay details of contracts of appointment of advisers before the House and in the case of senior advisers will have to set out their qualifications for the position and provide an annual statement of the interests of that adviser which might be relevant to his or her job. The Bill specifically requires that the appointment of each special adviser ends with the termination of office of the office holder and that the Government may not appoint such advisers to permanent positions in the Civil Service.

The Bill will enable the Government to require anyone in a directorship in the public service to make an annual statement of interests and an ad hoc statement where conflict of interest may directly arise. The Bill will ensure that this will happen in any case where the public interest would be best served by such a disclosure. The Bill sets out strict requirements to be followed when a direct conflict of interest arises. Compliance with the Bill's provisions in respect of annual statements of interests and ad hoc statements of conflict of interest will be a condition of employment. Failure to comply will result in a breach of contract and expose the individual concerned to servere disciplinary action.

The net result of these provisions is that the public can be fully confident that public servants act in the public good and that any contravention of this principle can be investigated and dealt with effectively. The real benefit for the public service is that the Bill will demonstrate the commitment and integrity of our public servants who have served this country so well. The Bill is comprehensive, well focused and well designed. It carefully balances its requirements by reference to the power of the positions involved.

Recently in my constituency we had a case which raises many questions about the role of politicians and public servants. Four weeks ago at a meeting of Sligo Corporation from which the press was excluded, an attempt was made to sell off a large development site in Sligo town worth in excess of £50,000 for less than half its price to two local developers. This land was not advertised for sale or put on the open market to allow all citizens and developers an opportunity to make a bid for it. When I objected to the proposed sale of the site at the time, I said that any attempt to sell off public property for less than half its value in a private deal behind closed doors could only be described as outrageous and appalling. I pointed out that not only would it be unethical but would be bad business practice and an affront to the people of Sligo.

That the property was owned by the Office of Public Works at the time has caused further confusion. If the Office of Public Works wished to sell public property to the developers in question why did it not do so directly? Why did it insist on disposing of the property to Sligo Corporation on condition that it would be sold for half its value to the two private developers? It would now appear that the Office of Public Works was precluded by law from selling this site to private developers without placing it for sale on the open market. It appeared to be using the local authority to sell it to the named developers for less than half its value. Many members of the public have since asked if this was some type of laundering operation.

Fortunately, due to my objections, the fact that this matter became public knowledge and the expressions of interest in the property by other developers, corporation officials eventually recommended that the proposed sale of the property should not go ahead. Many questions have been raised rightly by the general public as a result of this controversy. It has been asked if this type of affair occurred in the past behind closed doors in other places. In this context, we urgently require ethics in public office legislation.

This Bill is about deepening our democracy through greater openness and transparency. It is about honestly showing the public that we in the Houses of the Oireachtas have nothing to hide and enabling the Government to demonstrate that the power of public office is used for the common good. It is about confirming the integrity of those in public service and more fundamentally, building greater public confidence in our democracy through disclosure and the clear separation of public and private interests. The great majority of people in public life have nothing to hide. In due course the Ethics in Public Office Bill will demonstrate this.

I welcome this Bill as landmark legislation which fulfils a key commitment in the Programme for a Partnership Government and sets out comprehensive measures to ensure greater transparency and accountability in the conduct of public business. The Labour Party is delivering on its commitments.

Mr. Kemmy

As I listened to this debate, I could not help thinking that it is very difficult for the Labour Party to win on many issues and for the Government to win on this Bill. Some of the critics have said that it is flawed and not strong enough while others have said that it is too intrusive almost as if Big Brother is looking over the shoulder of public representatives and civil servants. It is very difficult to determine who is right and who is wrong. Why, if the Bill is so bad and so weak, have the critics not brought forward their own Bill? Fine Gael has been in office many times while the Progressive Democrats have been in office more recently and neither made any attempt to introduce an ethics Bill. I do not therefore take their criticisms too seriously.

Deputy Harney, who has now left the House, said that this is a cosmetic exercise; it is not. The Bill marks a serious attempt to introduce legislation on a sensitive but important matter. Last week her colleague, Deputy Michael McDowell, came into this House with all guns blazing. I was reminded of the charge of the light brigade which is appropriate given that the Progressive Democrats are getting lighter every day. They are falling apart at the seams very rapidly.

Deputy McDowell, who is a member of the legal profession, led the charge on this Bill in a flamboyant and swashbuckling speech. He gave good value for money and I enjoyed his contribution. Indeed, his performance have reminded me of the boy on the burning deck. I put it to him that he should look at ethics in his own party, with particular reference to selection conventions, or more nearer home, at ethics in the legal profession, particularly the restrictive practices used by its members to boost the earnings of senior and junior counsel.

The legal profession is not squeamish when it comes to taking money from anybody, be they bank robbers or drug dealers. They never refuse money and do not worry about ethics when it comes to taking money from criminals. That is how they make their living in many cases. Let the Deputy look into that and come back to us on it. I did not take the Deputy too seriously. If he was serious about this matter he would have drafted his own Bill as an economist and member of the legal profession he would be well capable of drafting a Bill to highlight any of our deficiencies.

Likewise Deputy Rabbitte of Democratic Left who also criticised could have drafted a Private Members' Bill if he was so concerned. Democratic Left which originated from Sinn Féin, Sinn Féin the Workers Party and The Workers Party is not in any position to talk about ethics. In the last Seanad elections, having condemned each other during the course of the campaign, the Progressive Democrats and Democratic Left came together to make arrangements to elect each other. I saw nothing ethical in that arrangement. While it may have been pragmatic and effective, one could not describe it as ethical.

There has been much misrepresentation and distortion of this Bill which sets out to achieve certain objectives. It seeks to ensure that the public have a right to know that private interests do not influence the decisions of policy-makers, be they public representatives or civil servants. It also sets out to separate public and private interests of politicians and civil servants. As my colleague, Deputy Bree, said, money can sometimes distort democracy which is not a fixed or static entity but a developing process. Financial dealings have become more sophisticated and complex recently and this legislation attempts to keep pace with the rapidly changing financial world and to ensure that these financial dealings do not damage or infringe on the public interest or the democratic process.

The Bill is working towards more open Government and administration. As Deputy Bree also said, some well-known politicians have enriched themselves by using privilege or inside information to advance their financial interests and those of their friends.

Deputy Harney was critical of the Labour Party, but the foundation of her party would warrant a thesis. The Progressive Democrats Party received a large amount of money from private business interests but its members were not concerned from where the money came and there were no ethical considerations in its use to boost the party's image to have some of its members elected to the Dáil and the Seanad. Members of the Progressive Democrats when elected to this House acted as if butter would not melt in their mouths but, like all of us, they are robust politicians. Many of them are former members of the Fianna Fáil Party. Deputies Harney and O'Malley were Members of the House during the Taca days and there was nothing very ethical about Taca. Deputy Deasy was also around in those days. Deputies O'Malley or Harney were not very concerned about the dealings of Taca and the other fund-raising groups involved. They are not "born again Progressive Democrats"; like Democratic Left they have come up through the democratic process. They do not fool me by coming into this House like sheep and acting as if butter would not melt in their mouths. I do not accept that attitude. They should accept that most of the large parties here have been funded by donations from big businesses in the private sector, but my party received no such money.

The Bill is not perfect or written in tablets of stone. There is room for improvement and if worthwhile amendments are tabled on Committee Stage, they will be considered. Other speakers referred to the passport controversy and applications for citizenship. The Bill can be amended to cater for them. I was made aware of people's feelings on that matter on the doorsteps of Minister in the run-up to the European elections. People's feelings on the matter are well known and I am concerned about what happened. Not everybody believes the statements that were made. I hope this Bill will improve the position and alleviate concerns in that regard.

The Bill also sets out practical requirements for public representatives, including Ministers and civil servants, which can be easily met by honest politicians. If necessary, those requirements can be improved. The economist, Galbraith, referred to cultural contentment. We have cultural contentment in our society even though it is disturbed at times. We frequently take things for granted. We are a tribalistic society and tend to accept the nod and wink approach. We look up to swashbucklers with an heroic air about them and fail to consider how they achieved their money. The Bill proposes to curtail the activities of such swashbucklers, people who have made a great deal of money in the past by using inside information and private, privileged knowledge.

Deputy Harney was critical of the appointment of programme managers, advisers and other officials and quoted a figure of £2 million for them. She said we are not receiving good value for money from those people, but she has a blinkered attitude to the matter. I am satisfied that those advisers and programme managers are giving good value for money. One cannot look at this in a blinkered fashion. Are the relatively well paid senior officials in other semi-State and State establishments giving similar value for money. I would be happy if they were. The Government's programme managers and advisers are giving far better value for money than most public officials. If they assist in providing a more transparent Administration and in introducing more legislation, they will have justified their stewardship. So far as I am concerned Members who are critical of them are merely playing to the gallery in an attempt to score cheap points.

Deputy Harney went on to advance the name of Peter Sutherland for President of the European Commission. On the one hand, she accused the Labour Party of nepotism and appointing members of its party to various posts and then went on to advocate Peter Sutherland for President of the Commission. Surely that is another form of nepotism. Opposition members are shedding crocodile tears, not in an attempt to advance Peter Sutherland's case but in an effort to embarrass the Government. Most of the time they do not believe what they say. I certainly have doubts about Deputy Bruton's enthusiasm for Mr. Sutherland, he is using this matter to embarrass the Government. I do not believe what Deputy Harney said earlier.

The Bill is a step in the right direction and some of the criticisms of it have been knocked on the head. For example, the tax amnesty brought £240 million into the Exchequer and the Minister for Health, Deputy Howlin, spent most of it on worthwhile projects. I have not heard anybody say that we should give back that money. We chose the lesser of two evils and it will be more difficult for those who have been brought into the tax net under the amnesty to evade paying their taxes in the future. Also, the penalties for tax evaders are much more draconian. From where does the Opposition propose the Government should get £350 million to pay off the transitional payments to married women as a result of the success of the equality case in Europe? On the one hand, Members opposite criticise the Government for public expenditure and, on the other, they demand such payments. Such inconsistent attitudes are unfair.

I hope the Bill is passed by the House today. It is not the Holy Grail, but an honest attempt to make public life better.

Mr. Deasy

The last thing I would wish to see brought into this debate is politics. The trust of the debate should be to do what is best for everybody. The Bill is inadequate, but it is a definite attempt to improve the position. What we should be talking about is ethics in every walk of life and in that regard the best thing to do is to start with Members of the Oireachtas. We are addressing only a minor detail of a much greater problem relating to dishonesty and racketeering. I do not believe anybody will be deterred by this legislation from acting illegally if they wish to do so. There are very few dishonest politicians, but those few will drive through this legislation with a coach-and-four and laugh all the way to the bank.

What has happened to those who made a fortune from their inside knowledge of the affairs of the Irish Sugar Company? People made millions, but nothing happened. What has happened to those who made millions of pounds from the scandal in Aer Lingus Holidays? We are told periodically that proceedings are taking place. I take all those pious aspirations and statements with a grain of salt because I have not heard of one of those people being charged not to mention going to prison, but a mother of ten would be sent to prison for six months for stealing an item worth 50p from a supermarket.

The bigger the crime the more likely the offender is to get away with it. I am sure Members will have heard of Tammany Hall in the United States. The Irish were instrumental in organising the rackets. I expect other nationalities came around to seeing the error of the Irish ways and tried to stop them. They have stopped them to a considerable extent. It is not uncommon to see one or more of the advisers to the President of the United States going to prison for breaking the law.

Recently, I heard that 14 members of President Reagan's administration were sent to prison. How many members of any administration here appeared in court or spent one day in prison? An American President was impeached, dismissed from office by his peers. Could that happen here? It could not because dishonesty and criminality are ingrained in our society to such a degree that the bulk of the general public will clap a person on the back even if he or she is known to have swindled millions of pounds as long as that person gets away with it. We live in a society where the main object is not to be caught. With the best will in the world I do not believe this legislation will catch the perpetrators, those who are abusing the system. We cannot pass retrospective legislation.

We know of politicians who have made millions of pounds dishonestly because of membership of this House. They are great in the eyes of many people. That saps the morale of decent people. They have given up on this long ago and do not believe that anybody will be prosecuted, convicted and put behind bars. Many people reached the point of despair long ago.

I mentioned Greencore, Aer Lingus Holidays and I could also mention Telecom, episodes into which some of our strongest and most powerful financial figures have had an input. What has become of those scandals? I am not making a political issue out of this. The Labour Party received a big vote in the last election because it expressed the view that it would deal effectively with these law breakers and those whom I would call major criminals. If this Bill helped to do that I would applaud it, but we cannot legislate in retrospection. Who will pursue those people? The system under which we work is one of nods and winks. It is difficult to get hard evidence and to get people to swear in court that a crime was committed and fraudulent activity took place although we all know it has taken place.

We are all waiting, with bated breath, the publication of the report of the beef tribunal. If people at the top are indicated by it we will have to wait and see if we have the guts to follow the matter through. What has become of the planning scandals, the rezoning, particularly by members of Dublin County Council, where huge sums of money passed between certain individuals? Nothing has happened. What about the continual abuses by certain local authorities of section 4 motions, a device to override and undo the regular planning process? That can only be used with an ulterior motive. Sometimes a county manager or a planning officer could be so intransigent that a section 4 motion would be needed to address a problem, but when local authorities apply section 4 motions week in, week out, one would be a fool if one did not realise corruption was involved. Corruption is the word that applies in relation to Greencore, Telecom, Aer Lingus Holidays or the rezoning of agricultural land for building and industrial purposes. The list is probably very long but those are some of the obvious ones which involved millions of pounds for a number of individuals, none of whom has been or will be brought before the courts. I do not believe I am wrong.

The system is as crooked as a corkscrew and we should face up to that. That is not the fault of Members of this House, it is ingrained in our society. Maybe there are a few sharp operators in the House, but by and large politicians are strictly honest. However, there is a system of crookedness which nobody has attempted to unfurl. I would like to believe otherwise, but I am afraid this legislation will not scratch the surface of that crooked system.

I will be lambasted for making the following statement. The media have much to answer for because — I will not say it condones — it goes along with the belief that what is happening is crooked and that crooked people are fine people unless they are caught. Above all, we lack investigative journalism. We do not have the investigative programmes like The Cook Report or World in Action or other such programmes which we receive through British and American networks. We do not have that system because we are too cosy. Many political correspondents, editors, radio and television programme presenters and managers are too cosy. They are part of the social set and they do not want to upset the apple cart. Their attitude appears to be, we have a lovely system so why rock the boat? Am I a fool, am I wrong? I do not think so, but I will be portrayed as being wrong and told that I should not have said what I said. The way they do that is to ignore me, black me out or pretend I did not make that statement or that I do not exist. Society is answerable and, with due respect to the Minister she is doing her best, but she has not a hope, others are laughing at her. She is naive, an innocent abroad and I do not say that with any malice; I say it in all sincerity. Stronger people than her have tried but they were pushed into the background and left talking to themselves as if they were cases for a mental home. That is what happens. The system as it stands cannot be beaten and, unless we take on the people who are allowing it to happen, nothing will be done. I probably should have brought a prepared script with me, but I did not so it takes a bit of effort——

Mr. H. Byrne

To keep doing.

Mr. Deasy

Not at all. I could say too much. It seems that everybody has given up. Deputy spring and the Labour Party polled strongly at the last election because they held out the promise that they would do something about corruption, about the golden circles. The higher up people were, the more corrupt they were, and the Labour Party promised to do something about it. This Bill is the result, but it does not address the problem.

Power corrupts and it even happens in politics. I would like to see politicians being honest enough to admit that society is rotten with insincerity and financial corruption. I am amazed that so few Members are offering to speak. The reason they are opting out is that they have given up hope. I will not give up. We should all stick with it. I admire people on all sides of the House who are courageous. Deputy Kemmy speaks his mind but does not get the appreciation he deserves. Deputy McDowell speaks his mind and although everybody may not agree with him, he says it. Such people are too few and the indifference of the vast majority means that the few who speak out are not listened to.

Mr. H. Byrne

Like Deputy Deasy I am not giving up hope. I welcome the Bill and I see it as setting down certain minimum rules of conduct. Nothing in this Bill as it applies to the office holder could be described as difficult or extraordinary and I am happy to comply with its provisions.

However, this legislation does not provide for ethics in Government. No legislation could do that. Some have commented that this Bill represents a coming of age of politicians. In bringing in this legislation politicians are supposed to be facing reality and dealing with it. With the benefit of hindsight I suspect that this Bill will be viewed less as a coming of age than as a loss of innocence.

In the 20 years that I have been a public representative there has been no significant drop in standards in public life, ethical or otherwise. In certain respects standards have risen. As our population has become more educated and informed, so too have our politicians. Anyone who compares the make-up of this House with that of 20 years ago would see a great deal of change not only in personnel but in the type of person coming here. What has also changed significantly is the level of scrutiny to which politicians are now subject. The electronic media provide an instant and enlarged view of our affairs. Significantly, television particularly is not geared towards any type of in-depth coverage of issues. In recent years the print media have increasingly tended towards the sensational. Furthermore, commentary rather than reporting is the norm in political coverage in the print media.

It is fair to ask if the perceived drop in political standards is about politicians or how they are portrayed. The current price war between British newspapers and the potentially devastating effect on Irish publishing could have a greater effect on Irish political ethics than any Bill published in this House. The Minister could probably do more for the standing of Irish politics by removing the 12 per cent VAT on Irish newspapers than by worrying about who might be paying for my lunch. If Irish politicians think they are getting a raw deal now from the media, God help us when Rupert Murdoch comes along. The spectacle of Irish politics viewed through a telephoto lens hidden in bushes would hardly be edifying.

This Bill meets a perceived need in that, like Caesar's wife, we must be beyond reproach. Legislation like this may bring about greater transparency but it will not create ethics in politics. It should also be borne in mind that, with transparency, there is a law of diminishing returns. Respect for politics has been undermined, not by thieves but by knaves. Innuendo and unsubstantiated charges, made under cover of parliamentary privilege have become the order of the day in some quarters. Irish politics are being undermined by a fifth column who are prepared to undermine the institutions they supposedly serve for short term advantage. A pattern has arisen of the few wrapping themselves in righteousness and then promptly abandoning any ethical consideration or principle in pursuit of the lowest political considerations. Much, if not all, this behaviour has come from the Progressive Democrats. Almost singlehandedly they have done more to undermine confidence in politics than any alleged scandal. They are now at the point where their own clearly exhibited double standards are an open sore on the Irish body politic. Much play has been made of the "gravy train" enjoyed by politicians. None made more hay out of this than the Progressive Democrats. Their then pensionable Ministers made an especially ostentatious virtue of renouncing their ministerial pensions but that vow of poverty was soon broken. Not only did they break their vow of poverty, they went on to break their vows of chastity and obedience. That pillar of public virtue, Deputy O'Malley, did a U-turn on his promise to the people of Limerick not to run for the European Parliament. He sought to double his Dáil salary of £31,495 to £62,990 by seeking election as an MEP. On top of double jobbing, Deputy O'Malley would have been happy to collect a basic salary of £77,000 before collecting a pension and a double scoop of allowances as an MEP and Dáil Deputy. On £77,851 a year it must be very easy to sleep the sleep of the just and righteous.

Of course the Progressive Democrats are entitled to their wages, but they are not entitled to drag Irish politics down by their litany of broken promises. The contrast between their public virtues and private vices could not be greater. Will Deputy O'Malley request the taxpayers to fund his considerable cost at the Beef Tribunal? He has not yet denied that suggestion? Are we to take his silence as suggesting that he will ask the taxpayers to fund these costs, which are suggested to be £750,000? The people of Munster served the Progressive Democrats, including Deputy O'Malley, their just desserts.

No consideration of ethics in politics would be complete without the observation that it was the Progressive Democrats who, in repeated fits of Miltonic pride, would sooner rule in hell than serve in heaven. Sadly, because of certain perceptions, this legislation is now a political necessity but law cannot create virtue. There is no substitute for personal integrity, and anyone who has not learned the difference between right and wrong before they come into politics is not likely to learn it here. Ethics in politics are about decent people trying to do the right thing. As well as not putting your hand in the till ethics in politics are about pursuing policies bravely and consistently, about resisting pressure, even if that means unpopularity. Our ethical standards will be judged by the way we respond to the crisis at TEAM Aer Lingus and other crucial issues. Ethics are not a composite of easy options, smart remarks and wishful thinking. Fundamentally ethics are outside the scope of this Bill and all other legislation. This Bill simply increases transparency in public affairs.

I wish to refer to an amendment suggested last week by the Minister. While I understand her reasons for such amendment I would sound a note of caution because it might make the job of governing cumbersome and difficult. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. G. Mitchell

With the permission of the House I would like to share my time with Deputy Frances Fitzgerald.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. G. Mitchell

A fundamental point is being missed both in the Bill and in the debate so far. What is happening is that a two tier society is developing. I recall what attracted me to politics in the early 1960s. It was not the concept of the local socialist who lived on the back road, in the big house with a swimming pool, while there was no such facility as a swimming pool for the remainder of the people. I have been often asked since why I joined Fine Gael. There were many fine people in the Labour Party at that time for whom I had great regard, such as the late Brendan Corish and the late Frank Cluskey, but I did not see anything in what was put forward by that party as socialism that was in the interests of the ordinary people.

I find it difficult to understand people who practice capitalism in purporting to support socialism for the masses. Many such capitalists are millionaires who live off the backs of ordinary people. Some of those who brand themselves "socialists" know as much about the working man or woman as did the Shah of Iran.

In the 1960's people such as Declan Costello and a young Garret FitzGerald held out hope, hope of a just society, and that attracted many people to Fine Gael. It caught the imagination of many but the talk now is of an economy, not a country. Everyone refers to economics, and the rules are constantly changing. We are told now that there is an economic boom, that inflation is low, the debt-GNP ratio is under control and that there are improved growth rates. God be with the times when economic success was measured by unemployment and emigration statistics.

The basic flaw in this Bill is that we are being told the big lie by the Government, and we have bought it hook, line and sinker. We have sold our hearts and souls to the economists. The sooner we call a spade a spade, identify matters accurately and compel Governments to be accountable, the sooner we will have ethics in Government. The motto of Governments in this country has become, "the truth is what we say it is".

The result is that there is a two tier society. There are those who are milking the system, who are in the golden circle, and there are those who are living, primarily in cities but also in rural areas, in extremely difficult circumstances. There are people living in flat complexes which, as I have been trying to persuade the House for the last ten years, should be refurbished. However there has been little support in this House for that area. There are 10,000 people living between the canals in Dublin, in local authority flat complexes which nobody in this House would aspire to live in. We should not tolerate those living conditions for our citizens. I have raised this matter time and again with Ministers and at committees, but nothing has been done about it.

As Lord Mayor of Dublin I set up the Lord Mayor's Commission on Housing, chaired by Dr. Garret FitzGerald who presented what has been referred to as the best report on housing since 1914. The response was by way of meagre advances, putting windows in flat complexes. For the people who live in very bad conditions in those flat complexes, third level education is not even on the agenda. We talk about justice, a just society, socialism and so on, but we cannot make people equal. We should at least tell that truth. However, we can give people equal opportunities, and the way to do so is to give them access to decent housing and third level education.

We should get rid of the "isms". Socialism has not changed very much—I regret to say this because I know I am provoking many people who hold strong views in this regard, and I respect their right to hold those views — from the time of the socialist on the back road, with his big swimming pool in the front garden. These people do not know much about the working classes, and that is the problem. If we are serious about changing ethics in public office we should concentrate on the people in the inner circle and remember the Telecom Éireann scandal, the Greencore scandal and the Aer Lingus Holidays scandal. A few of those involved in those scandals were Members of this House and some of them are continuing in public office, appointed by Governments who are supposed to be accountable to this House.

When will we get honest answers to questions? As the Chairman of the Beef Tribunal stated, if a proper parliamentary system operated here we would not have had the scandal of that inquiry. Can the Minister opposite say what is to be done about making answer time as interesting as Question Time? When a Member of Parliament asks a question he or she should get an honest answer. When will civil servants be imbued with the tradition that you do not hide the truth from Parliament? Parliament should be told the truth. We, the elected representatives of the people, should get straight answers to our questions. That is what ethics in Government is about and when we see it we will have ethics in Government and in public office.

It is a nonsense to toy with it here. Politicians are constantly jibing at themselves and weakening the body politic. They have handed power to all types of commissions but some of the people who have been put in control of the great assets of this State have abused their position; nothing has been done about it and they were allowed walk away. If a poor devil was caught with his hand in the till taking £20, he would lose his job in the public service and would be barred from appointment forever. A constituent of mine was barred from taking up a trainee appointment in Telecom Éireann, before it became a semi-State company, because on one occasion he urinated in public on his way home from a pub when he was 19 years old. He was brought to court and thereafter was barred from appointment to the public service for the rest of his life. I raised that question in the House time and again but he still was not given the job even though he had been selected for it. Ethics in Government? That did not happen to any of the boys at the top or any of those involved in the big scandals and it will not happen under the provisions of this Bill.

I am sorry to say it straight to the Minister's face but this Bill was prepared by a naive Minister with the assistance of naive and inexperienced civil servants with probably a few political lackeys throwing it in. It is not a good Bill. It is not a smart move and it will not deal with real ethics in Government because the Minister does not understand the basic needs of the second tier. The Minister is part of the first tier, part of the inner golden circle. The Minister and a great many like her hide behind a brand of socialism which would be enough to make decent socialists who are dead and buried, such as Frank Cluskey and Brendan Corish, turn in their graves. Let me say that it does not apply to everyone and I am sure the vast majority are not in that category. This Bill goes nowhere near dealing with the real problem of ethics in public office.

I have no difficulty whatsoever with the declaration of interests. I see no reason why this should not be the case, but it will be used by some journalists who constantly titillate the interests of the public by claiming that TDs are earning £60,000 per annum, because somebody has an outside interest which is yielding more than £2,000 per annum. We cannot do anything about that except perhaps introduce an ethics in journalism Bill or ethics in trade unions Bill. The real base of power has gone from this House. Decisions were made behind closed doors during the negotiations leading to the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, the Programme for National Recovery and the Programme for Competitiveness and Work. Some trade unionists are earning very high salaries but we dare not criticise them. They are like the church of old, we dare not criticise them.

Trade unions have done a good job by and large but they should not be beyond examination and valid criticism. Business people have said behind closed doors that their objective is to make profit and not job creation; they are negotiating with the Government of the day and making decisions behind closed doors. How does this Bill affect them? In so far as it affects Members what power do most Members, who are not members of the Government, yield? Government backbenchers yield some power but they do not exercise it in this House, they exercise it at parliamentary party meetings or in cosy meetings with the Minister where there will be no declarations of interest. It is total nonsense.

The amounts above for which a Member must declare an interest have been set out in the Bill and I hope the Minister has allowed for indexation of the figures.

Ms E. Fitzgerald

It is provided for in the Bill.

Mr. G. Mitchell

I am glad to hear that. This Bill needs to be looked at again and I hope it will get a detailed examination on Committee Stage. The Fine Gael Party will not oppose its Second Reading but it needs to be examined further. We need to look at the question of ethics in a real way and this Bill falls short of that.

Ms F. Fitzgerald

Listening to Deputy Mitchell I was reminded of a quotation I saw the other day about ethics being the greatest happiness of the greatest numbers. The big ethical scandal in this country is the scandal of unemployment, the lack of equal opportunity and the denial of social justice, as Deputy Mitchell said. I quite agree with him that this is the issue as well the secret deals which we have seen on pay agreements and various sectional interests. This has meant that the real problem of unemployment has not been tackled in the way it should be. Dr. Kieran Kennedy, in an article which he wrote, said that he felt there was no moral or political consensus to really tackle unemployment. As a member of the National Economic and Social Forum, which has been examining long term unemployment, I can say that the evidence we have looked at convinces me that he is right. That is the big ethical question that needs to be tackled in this country.

I do not think the Labour Party can come in here and ask us to consider its Bill without regard to its context. I agree with the register of interest and the other contents in the Bill but when I put it in the context in which it is being introduced and the various actions of the Labour Party and Fianna Fáil in the past years, my point of view is different. I think this Bill is designed to convince the rest of us that the Labour Party are the moral guardians, the people who can be trusted to keep Fianna Fáil straight. The Labour Party wants to inspire confidence in politics. It is a shame that it is only periodically and selectively that it does this.

The Bill has a grand title for a rather straightforward piece of legislation. The title tells us more about the grandiosity of the Labour Party and its symbolic approach to ethics than what it tells us about the Bill. There is no doubt that this register of interests legislation is common to many democracies. It is absolutely essential and is a basic of civilised parliamentary democracy at the end of the 20th century. Politics is complex. Politicians are meant to be leaders in our society and the way we behave in this Parliament and the approach we take to ethical issues will influence the rest of society. Whether a straightforward register of interest will lead to more ethical behaviour or reduced ethical conflicts of interest is questionable and is far from clear. Would this Bill, if it had been enacted, have prevented any of the scandals we have seen in recent years? That is open to question.

Many aspects of the Bill need to be discussed on Committee Stage. It has to be remembered that many Legislatures around the world have the most cumbersome and detailed disclosures of interests regulations. An American Congressman told me Congress had a thick book covering ethical issues for Government but that does not mean that political scandals will not take place. It is a clear indication that simply having a register of interests is not the answer and does not necessarily create the milieu for ethical behaviour.

The Bill sets up a Commission of Investigation and Committees of the House. The Commission, which this Bill proposes to set up will have power to summon witnesses and send for records to help in its task. I welcome that, yet committees in existence do not have these powers, which they ought to have. The committee system was meant to reform this House and change the way the House operates but the committees do not have power to send for witnesses and serious ethical questions can arise in the areas they discuss.

The question raised by Deputy Dukes about what kind of abuse the measures were designed to guard against merits detailed discussion. The discussion has been very interesting. Some Members are despairing at the standard of morality in public life but I do not think we should fall into that habit. The question of intent to deceive as opposed to a technical failure to comply is not dealt with. Neither, of course, has there been any discussion on what constitutes political ethics and we have not been given any background to the register. Members and others will have to make a statement of their interests and financial assets. That is proper; it is right that income, directorships, ownership of land and paid positions are named but the register is nothing more than that and, unfortunately, will not guarantee more ethical behaviour in political life. It cannot do that because it steers away from the real issues of power and influence, the pull and partiality and the corruption and favoured treatment that we see.

The real questions concern the secret society that party politics has been in this country, the lack of information generally in our society and the public's right to know. As an Opposition Deputy I am aware of the difficulties in assessing where real decisions are made; for instance, the ongoing appointments to State and semi-State boards, particularly of unqualified people who belong to a particular party. We must think about the way that is influencing the quality of decision making in this country. The ongoing influence that is exerted through those boards and other major appointments, and the secret nature of many of those appointments, is the real unethical behaviour in Irish political life.

The Labour Party in Opposition had eyes and ears and honesty. It knew about the contracts that were put out to tender, the bits of information that were given out and the deals that were done but now that it is in partnership, the Labour Party has no plans to do anything about those matters. This Bill will not change the cynicism that exists about politics. Unfortunately, political life will continue unchanged unless action is taken in a range of other areas. The public has a right to more information and to have a more open society. That is what ethics are about.

I sat in this House for weeks listening to the debate on the Structural Funds. At the time I called it an "Alice in Wonderland" discussion. Every time Ministers came in here and told half-truths and did not own up to the reality of the situation represented an abuse of power. Their performances were shoddy and unethical and that continued day after day. One can see here that information is continually kept from the Dáil. Deputy Mitchell is right about the changing power in this society and the way the Dáil is used. That issue must be examined. Members of the Opposition must constantly face obstacles in their pursuit of the truth. There is an imbalance in background resourcing compared to other Legislatures where a high level of information is available to politicians irrespective of who is in power.

Although we criticise the United States, conflicts of interest can be identified as a result of the level of information available there. The level of information available to Deputies in this House, however, is outrageous. We will now invest £10 million in new buildings. That £10 million should be invested in trying to make this Parliament a more open, informed, democratic and resourced institution so that the level of discussion on a range if issues would be far higher.

We must break the cynicism that exists in regard to politics and politicians. This register will go some way towards achieving that but only high standards, open behaviour and clear information will help to break that cynicism. The Labour Party's breach of trust in the last election was unethical. Those people who voted Labour to keep Fianna Fáil out of office were very disappointed when they saw how the Labour Party had changed. That was very unethical behaviour on the part of the Labour Party and it will have a long road to travel before that breach of trust is repaired.

I referred to the Structural Funds debate, the changing National Development Plan, the approach adopted in regard to the passport issue, all of which lead to cynicism. This Bill will not eliminate that cynicism but as a basic measure in terms of stating interests it is important and represents one step in the right direction.

Mr. S. Kenny

I wish to share my time with Deputy Bell.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. S. Kenny

In the last election the Labour Party's election manifesto, "Putting Trust Into Politics", proposed a range of measures to restore trust to politics, provide more open and better Government, ensure transparency in Government transactions and the establishment of a framework for Government that upholds the trust of the people. The manifesto also called for a procedure for the declaration of interests and the disclosure by candidates and political parties of financial contributions. Those measures were contained in the Programme for a Partnership Government which undertakes to enact an ethics in Government Bill, the registration of Members' interests, a similar registration of interests for senior civil servants and senior executives of State companies and the introduction of State funding for political parties in line with European models.

I welcome the Bill as significant and major legislation which implements the commitments given in the Labour Party manifesto and the Programme for a Partnership Government. It is being enacted because the public has a right to know about the private interests that could potentially influence decisions taken by policy makers. Public and private interests should remain separate. The Bill recognises that in the complex world of financial and political life the potential for conflicts of interests has increased. The procedures proposed in the Bill provide a way of acknowledging and dealing with that potential conflict in a manner that enhances our democracy and our high standard of public service.

The Ethics in Public Office Bill is not concerned with catching out politicians. The vast majority of our politicians are hard working public servants who have entered public life not for financial advancement but for the good of the country. Indeed, the Bill is not a new idea. A public register of members' interests is a standard feature of most modern democracies. Members of the Dáil who are or who have been members of local authorities have had no difficulty in declaring their interests at that level. Our MEPs have been declaring their interests for years. Of course, for politicians, the ultimate judge of standards in public life is the electorate and the ultimate judgment takes place in the ballot box.

I listened with great interest to Deputy Deasy who made an excellent contribution. He referred to the public perception of scandal and corruption and gave examples in that regard. He referred to the question of land rezoning and the public perception of what was happening in that area. I wish to comment on that because as a member of a local authority I witnessed some of those rezonings, particularly in County Dublin.

Part of my constituency in Dublin North-East takes in Baldoyle and Howth and because section 4 motions were amended by legislation which required a three-quarters majority, the only mechanism available for rezoning was the county development plan.

Last year in County Dublin we witnessed some amazing attempts to rezone amenity land. Several unsuccessful attempts were made to rezone the old Baldoyle racecourse which had been open space for 20 or 30 years. Councillors who went completely against the wishes of the local people proposed motions and refused to turn up at public meetings which were called by the local people to discuss the proposals. The councillors withdrew their motions only at the eleventh hour, following public protests outside the county council offices. There was a similar experience in Howth. Attempts were made to rezone a high amenity mountain area of Howth for housing development. The councillors in that instance were going against public opinion. Actions such as those raise questions about standards and the reasons why councillors, in particular, make such proposals.

Some of the councillors to whom I have referred were members of the Opposition parties, Fine Gael, the Progressive Democrats and other parties also. This issue has been highlighted in the past and was referred to courageously by Deputy Deasy. That action gave rise to the public cynicism about politicians in general. One of the reasons why this Bill has been brought before the House is to put in place mechanisms so that members of this House who may have conflicts of interests will be required to declare them. Procedures and committees will be established to deal with that.

This comprehensive Bill enables the Government to bring any post or directorship in the public service within the scope of the Bill's requirements prescribing it as a "designated position" or "designated directorship". It means that not only civil servants, executives and directors of semi-State bodies come within the scope of the Bill but also health boards, local authorities and other local bodies. In addition the provisions can apply to any organisation financed wholly or partly out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas.

The Bill proposes the following requirements for employees and board members in the State sector: an annual statement of one's interests and those of a spouse or child which could influence the performance of a job; a formal declaration where direct conflict of interest may arise in the course of work; a prohibition on acting where conflict arises unless there are compelling reasons to do so. In such circumstances, a written explanation must be available to the independent commission and the local employer setting out the precise reasons.

The Bill makes it a condition of contracts of employment or appointment of each employee and board member that they fully comply with these requirements. Where a conflict of interest arises and a director or public servant performs the function without compelling reasons that person not only contravenes the Bill but breaches the contract of employment.

The Bill builds on existing arrangements for board members set out in guidelines for State bodies and extends them to other State employees. It is noteworthy that annual declarations of interests by board members and statements which arise in the context of a conflict of interest will be furnished to the independent commission. Similarly, declarations by employees in designated positions of employment in the Civil Service and public service will be available to the commission. These provisions firmly address the issue of disclosure of private interests by people in the public service and of the resolution of potential conflicts of their private interests with public business.

The Bill is unequivocal regarding the appropriate action to be taken where such conflicts arise and establishes a powerful overseeing mechanism to facilitate compliance and identify contraventions. The provisions are comprehensive and effective in that they open up the disclosures of interests and conflicts of interests by those in the public service to scrutiny by an independent commission outside the individual's organisation. The commission comprises the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Ombudsman, the Ceann Comhairle and Clerks of the Dáil and Seanad and has full powers to enable it to operate effectively. Investigations of possible contraventions by designated directors and those in designated positions of employment may be initiated by the commission, a Minister or relevant public body.

Under the Bill the commission can require the attendance of the person who is the subject of the investigation, the attendance and giving of evidence by witnesses, the production of documents, etc. Failure to comply with a lawful instruction of the commission will be an offence akin to contempt. Similarly the giving of false evidence will be akin to perjury. Such offences will be punishable by fine and other penalties laid down in the Bill. Where the commission finds that a civil servant, public servant or board member has contravened the Bill they will be in breach of their contract of employment and liable for disciplinary action. Depending on the circumstances of the contravention such sanctions range from loss of remuneration to suspension and other penalties.

The Bill is tough on corruption. It will strengthen and update existing statute in this area and ensure that the Prevention of Corruption Act applies not only to all public sector employees but to directors of public bodies as well as office holders and special advisers. It sets out effective disclosure mechanisms to show that those in key positions in the public service act in the public interest. I welcome the provisions which will demonstrate the integrity and commitment of our public servants who have and will continue to serve democracy well.

Mr. Bell

I listened with interest to Deputy Mitchell who gave a lecture on his interpretation of socialism, why he did not join the Labour Party and what he thought of former Deputy Garret FitzGerald, about whom no one in the House has any doubts about his honesty and integrity. One would think Deputy Mitchell and Fine Gael were the keepers of ethics. Another Fine Gael leader, Deputy Dukes, will be seen as an honest man of great integrity but when the Tallaght strategy did not work he was dealt with in an unethical way and removed. It is not so long ago when an unethical attempt was made to kick out the present leader, Deputy Bruton, an equally honest man. It looks as if the track record for honest men in Fine Gael has not been successful. When it comes to ethics——

Mr. Durkan

There is a scarcity of them over there too.

Mr. J. Higgins

That is democracy.

Mr. Bell

——it preaches to the Labour Party but does not practice what it preaches. If that is its interpretation of democracy it is not the public's concept of it. The way those three honest men were dealt with would not be seen as ethical by the public. They were three successive leaders of that great party, Fine Gael.

I am glad Fine Gael will not oppose the Bill and I look forward to the Opposition amendments on Committee Stage. The Minister and the Labour Party welcome any reasonable measures to strengthen the Bill. I welcome the Bill as part of the Programme for Government. We were told by all sides of the House that a Bill of this nature is necessary. It was included in the Programme for Government and has not been brought forward but we are now criticised for doing so. The Progressive Democrats waxed eloquently about ethics but I will not deal with that because I do not wish to have a dog fight on this important Bill. However, when we see the amendments Deputy McDowell will bring forward to strengthen it we might have something to say about ethics in politics.

This is important legislation and a genuine attempt to change the public concept of politics. Many of the contributions by people in public life have created in the minds of the general public the impression that everyone in public life, not alone in political parties, are corrupt. They should look at the position in the US, Japan and the Mafia in Italy and they would have some idea of corruption in public life and politics. I am glad to have been part of the democratic system for the last 30 years. Very few people from any party could say there was corruption in political parties or in the political system here, particularly compared with what is happening throughout the world.

I have no worries about the Bill. As far as I am concerned this Bill was not necessary because I have one job. I am a Member of Dáil Éireann, subject to reelection. I have no business or professional interests. If I am not re-elected I will receive unemployment benefit or assistance if I qualify for either. I would have to live on a meagre pension of approximately £120-£130 per week. That is all I would get after 30 years in politics. I do not own any property, have no involvement in any land deals and have no assets in the bank. After the European election campaign I owe the Bank of Ireland in Lawrence Street, Drogheda, approximately £7,500. I would be delighted to show my bank balance to anyone who wants to see it. I had to take out a mortgage on my house to get that loan.

Mr. McCormack

The Deputy has declared all his interests.

Mr. Bell

I was not offered any of the money I hear people talk about. If Deputies know anyone who wants to make a contribution to my fund will they please send him to Connolly Hall in Drogheda? I am making a plea for financial help. I do not know where all the money people talk about comes from but it certainly does not come from people in County Louth. I do not know any politicians in County Louth who get that type of money.

I will have nothing to worry about then declaring my interests and neither will the Members of the Labour Parliamentary Party. I do not know any rich men or women in the Labour Parliamentary Party. If any of them are rich I would like someone to tell me who they are. There are a few fairly rich men and women in the Fine Gael Party and some better off ones in the Progressive Democrats.

Mr. J. Higgins

We have worked for it.

Mr. Bell

I will not refer to any other parties. If the assets of all the political parties were put on a weighing scale the Labour Party would come out on the light side; we would lose that financial argument.

Mr. Durkan

The Labour Party is coming on.

Mr. Bell

I look forward to reading about the interests of the members of the Fine Gael and Progressive Democrats parties; it will make some interesting reading. This may be one reason they are not particularly pleased with the Bill. They are caught in a cul-de-sac— they cannot say they do not want the Bill because they have been preaching about the need for it for so long and now they say it is not strong enough and does not go far enough.

Mr. Durkan

Fianna Fáil backbenchers are not too vocal this evening.

Mr. Bell

Political parties should be funded by the State on an equal basis. People should not be able to make contributions to political parties and Members should not have to depend for funding on raffles or have to write letters at election time asking for money. If the public wants democracy it should pay for it.

The scandal in section 4 motions relates only to Dublin; it has nothing to do with County Louth. I have been a member of Drogheda Corporation for 20 years and only four section 4 motions have been put through during that time. On average one section 4 motion is put through by Louth County Council every two months and these normally relate to dwelling houses. None of the section 4 motions put through by the local authorities in County Louth related to land zoning. The scandal in section 4 motions relates to the Dublin County Council area, where the big money was to be made but those motions were not put through with the support of Labour Party councillors; the bulk of them were put through with the support of the Fine Gael members of Dublin County Council, and they know that as well as I do.

Mr. Durkan

I would not run that one nationwide.

Mr. Bell

The door has now been closed on this type of activity. It is very unjust and unfair to other constituencies and local authorities to far them with the crimes of Dublin County Council.

Most of the problems with which we have to deal have been caused by Members of this House who give the impression that we have something to hide. They now have an opportunity to declare their interests, and we will look at them very closely.

Mr. J. Higgins

I am very taken with Deputy Bell's dead pan enthusiasm for this disappointing long awaited and much heralded Bill. If ever there was a mistitled Bill, surely it is this. I wish to share my time with Deputy Padraig McCormack.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. J. Higgins

This is not an Ethics in Public Office Bill, it is a declaration of interests Bill. After all the promises made in the House in the wake of the Programme for a Partnership Government and its long period of gestation one would have expected — Deputy Seán Kenny seemed to think that we have such a Bill — a comprehensive all embracing measure which would root out and eliminate any trace of corruption in the political process. This Bill will not do that. This naïve, narrow and limited measure deals only with possible areas of financial interest. As has been repeatedly said in the House, it is little more than a window dressing exercise.

The purpose of a Bill is usually set out properly in the explanatory memorandum. For example, in the case of the recently published Heritage Council Bill, 1994, the explanatory memorandum states "The purpose of this Bill is to establish a body, to be known as An Comhairle Oidhreachta or, in the English language, The Heritage Council to perform certain functions in relation to the physical heritage", while in the case of the Refugee Protection Bill, 1994, the explanatory memorandum states: "The purpose of this Bill is to provide in Irish Law the protection extended to refugees in International Law. The need for such legislation is clearly stated in the Interim Report on Applications for Refugee Status of the Interdepartmental Committee on Non-Irish Nationals of 25th November, 1993". The purpose of this Bill is not set out in the explanatory memorandum. This is the first time I have ever seen this exemption. This is very strange and the Bill is nothing more than a salve to the conscience of the Labour Party.

Having listened to the contributions, there does not seem to be any marked enthusiasm among Labour Party Deputies for the Bill and there is very little enthusiasm for it among Fianna Fáil Deputies. The failure to set out the purpose of the Bill in the explanatory memorandum indicates a certain lack of thrust and purpose. Given the long period of gestation, the great expectations and the promises given on the order of business, one would have expected the purpose of the Bill to be spelt out in the clearest possible detail. Instead we have an elaborate superstructure covering a very limited area of activity which mainly involves politicians and their appendages.

It is incredible that only a few weeks after the sale of passports controversy a Bill should be published without any explanation of its purpose which does not seek to address a business practice which is open to serious question, that is, the sale of passpots. The Minister has given an assurance that this issue will be dealt with by way of a Government amendment, but surely the Bill should not have been published in its present form without dealing with such a topical issue?

Debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.