Bertie Ahern
Question:1 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if his attention has been drawn to any conflicts of interest of his Ministers or Ministers of State that would preclude them from handling certain aspects of their portfolios. [10367/95]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Ministerial Conflicts of Interest.
I am not aware of any conflicts of interests which would preclude any Minister or Minister of State from handling any aspect of his or her portfolio.
Does the Taoiseach agree with the comments of his former Cabinet colleague, Deputy Coveney, that we are in grave danger of deterring anyone with a business background from participating in politics because some people believed business was a dirty word? Does he agree that the profession of politics benefits from those with a background in business? What are his views on Deputy Coveney's comments?
I think politics benefits from having people with a business background, as well as other backgrounds taking part. It is important in any political organisation and in Cabinet to have diversity of interests and experience.
Will the Taoiseach confirm that the perception of recent legislation before the House is that it is anti-business? Does the Taoiseach have proposals to address that issue?
The Deputy's question is very vague and I am not quite sure to what he is referring.
There are two issues, one the Ethics in Public Office Bill with which I was involved in Government. We had agreed also at that stage that the green book on Government procedures would be updated. That was certainly under way before I left office. Perhaps the Taoiseach will tell the House if this has been finished. I believe that rules and regulations governing Members and office holders should be set out clearly in this book so that the public, the media and members know we are living by the book.
I do not think the matter should give rise to debate now. Indeed the Ethics in Public Office Bill is before the House today.
I agree we should not rehearse here the arguments that are being put in other business today. I agree with the view that the law in every area and the ethical code that politicians should follow or the civil and criminal codes, should be clear and certain. I do not believe it is good practice to establish legal norms which are subject to interpretation with the benefit of hindsight. The rules should be clear on the basis of foresight, not hindsight. The House should be wary of that at all times. The easiest thing in drafting legislation is to say this is wrong but the courts may work out exactly what is wrong and what is right within the terms of what we are saying. The law should be clear and leave as little as possible for subsequent interpretation by the courts. We should in the first instance make the law clear. This is a requirement in regard to jurisprudence that applies not only in regard to the laws governing politicians, with which we as practitioners would be most familiar, but in respect of laws applying to people in all walks of life.
Sir, I accept your ruling not to raise issues that are before the House. Based on the changes before the House, at what stage of rewriting is the green book on Government procedures? If the Taoiseach is not in a position to answer that question will he consider putting in place a similar book, based on recent changes, of procedure instructions for Deputies? I agree with what the Taoiseach said but in fairness, Members, like other professionals, should have written guidelines. There are guidelines for Ministers but not for Members.
I think the point in the latter part of the Deputy's question is good and this will be done. The House is aware that the Ethics in Public Office Bill will be followed by more detailed guidelines for Members and Ministers. What the Deputy is seeking will happen and is a good idea.
On the question of revising Cabinet instructions, my understanding is that the revision is being looked at but that revision would be premature in advance of the enactment of the Ethics in Public Office Bill because it will affect in no small degree the content of Government procedure instructions.
Deputy Bertie Ahern referred to Deputy Coveney's comments in an interview on 28 May in The Sunday Tribune. The Minister of State, Deputy Coveney, said that the present requirements are too severe in relation to declarations of interest and other matters and that was deterring business people from getting involved in politics. Does the Taoiseach agree with those comments?
I do not think the Ethics in Public Office Bill, when passed, will materially deter business people from taking part in politics. One cannot make a generalisation, there are business people who are legitimate and respectful of the law, honest in all their dealings who nonetheless, for other reasons, want to guard their privacy. They have no motive other than simply wishing to retain their privacy and obviously any declaration of interests in a public way will deter such people from taking part in politics.
There is an inevitable trade off between accountability and openness in regard to one's private holdings so that people can be judged in respect of any potential conflict of interests and the problem of attracting into politics people for whom privacy is an important concern. As with all choices in life, if one goes in one direction one loses something in another. That is life, unfortunately, and we cannot have it every way.
Will the Taoiseach make it clear that it is not accepted practice in his Government to do what a Minister of State did recently, that is, to communicate a statement of Government policy to 1.4 million householders by way of their ESB bills? The statement includes the Minister's photograph and begins with the words "As another step in Government policy...".
The Chair always deprecates the presentation of documentation of that kind in the Chamber.
Will the Taoiseach make it clear that it is not permitted practice for Ministers to communicate Government policy through ESB bills?
It is a separate matter.
The Deputy's approach is not at all reasonable. There is nothing wrong with using modern means of communication to convey genuine public information about Government policy.
It has his picture on it.
I can recollect advertisements sponsored by the Deputy's party when in office depicting people walking in and out of the sunset etc.
Does the Taoiseach remember what he said about it?
I have not seen this famous item that the Deputy is half-furtively waving around. I would be happy to inspect it from every point of view, including the art work. I have not seen it.
The Taoiseach must not pay the bills.
I am not aware of it and I will not be drawn to comment on any specific method used by any Minister for communicating with the public. However, the House should recognise that one of the responsibilities of Government is to communicate Government policy in the most efective manner——
Not through State companies.
——to the people concerned where those aspects of Government policy are matters upon which the public have an entitlement to be informed.
Not at the expense of the taxpayer.
There is an EU directive against that type of unwanted mail.