We will now discuss item No. 15, motion re. report of the Committee on Members' Interests of Dáil Éireann. I call on Deputy Tony Killeen, chairman of the Committee on Members' Interests of Dáil Éireann. The speech of the chairman and of the members of the committee for the Fine Gael and Labour parties shall not exceed five minutes in each case.
Report of Committee on Members' Interests: Motion
I move:
That, having regard to the report of the Committee on Members' Interests of the results of an investigation into a complaint concerning Deputy Denis Foley, which report was laid before Dáil Éireann on 18 May, 2000 and, in particular, having regard to the findings and determinations of the committee contained in that report, Deputy Denis Foley be suspended from the service of the House for the period of 14 days on which the House shall sit and that the period of that suspension shall commence forthwith.
The Committee of Members' Interests undertook a very difficult task in considering this matter and preparing the report. I confess to being somewhat surprised at the clamour for a debate, particularly emanating from sources, parties, individuals and groups who would have had an opportunity to have membership of the committee at the outset of the 28th Dáil, had they so chosen. My colleague members of the committee did not come under any pressure to have themselves replaced as members of the committee while this difficult task was under way.
I thank the committee members for the manner in which they undertook the very difficult task. I also thank the clerk of the committee, the other staff members and the legal team for their advice and support. It is important that the divisions throughout the report were unanimous and that reflects the level of co-operation and the understanding of the task taken by all the members.
The principle at stake is that of self-regulation by this House of the Oireachtas and whether it has the capacity to undertake such an inquiry. Many of us would have harboured doubts about whether that was possible. Since there is a relatively small membership, Members clearly know each other and it is very difficult to take legislation and make judgments on a colleague in the manner required by the Act. I am satisfied my colleagues and I undertook that fairly and with due process.
A 30 page report has been prepared which has been circulated and addresses all the relevant aspects of the case. I could not go into all the detail in the five minutes available to me. I urge any person with an interest in the case or who comments on it in public to read the report. There is a considerable body of evidence to suggest that some commentators, sadly including some Oireachtas Members, have commented on the case without either having read the Act or the report. That is regrettable and there is not much excuse for it since the report is very clear and available.
The case has been made very strongly that the level of suspension proposed is lenient and, in some cases, it is considered ridiculously lenient. It is clear that people who make that case do not understand that the committee had three major options available to it, noting the complaint, mere censure or a suspension ranging from naught to 30 days. In that context, much of the comment must be considered ill-founded and ill-informed. Also on this occasion, since it was the first complaint under the Act, the committee was faced in effect with conducting two processes, consideration of the individual case and establishing a precedent and a procedure for any future cases which may arise. One fervently hopes that does not happen.
It is also clear to any person who has given the matter consideration that the only matter which the committee was empowered to consider was the breach of the Act which had been alleged. There are other matters to do with Ansbacher accounts, membership of other committees of the House and so on which are thrown into the pot with every comment on the determination of the committee, which were entirely irrelevant to the consideration of this matter.
It is important when a committee of the House sets out on a job such as this that it would do so having due regard to natural and constitutional justice. That was done. The committee set out to act reasonably and in an impartial and unbiased manner. Furthermore, to be seen to act reasonably, fairly and impartially, the committee was required to apprise Deputy Foley of all the information in his possession whether favourable to him or otherwise. It was a requirement that the committee observe the statutory requirements laid down by the Ethics in Public Office Act, 1995. It was a requirement in constitutional and natural justice that Deputy Foley be allowed to represent his case in the best possible light and that the committee conduct its proceedings, procedures and adjudications in accordance with the principles of justice. The committee has done that.
I am not so naive as to think any determination of the committee would meet with acclaim, welcome and agreement inside or outside the House. While it is fair to take account of the points made by the committee on pages 29 and 30 of the report, anyone who has a genuine interest in the matter will consider a great deal more. It is fair to ask that that be done.
It is also fair that Members consider the provisions of sections 5 and 7 of the Act. Many of us have not done so. Those who are not members of the committee have a relatively poor understanding of the detail of the Act. If that is the case it is incumbent on them to rectify this shortcoming.
The determination was made under section 10 of the Act and is set out clearly under four headings which are dealt with in the report in considerable detail, with clarity and fair play to all concerned. I commend the report to the House.
This was the first test of the Ethics in Public Office Act. The proceedings were conducted in a non-political, non-partisan way. This is a tribute to the chairman, Deputy Killeen, a member of Fianna Fáil, and my colleagues on the committee.
As this was the first charge of its kind under the Act and the committee was embarking on new territory, it had to draw up new procedures. It had to draw up a statement of contravention, work out how this was to be served and allow an opportunity to respond. It also had to draw up a memorandum of proceedings in case the matter went to public hearings. Ultimately, after about 13 meetings, it reached the stage where in natural justice it had to present the draft memorandum of proceedings to the respondent, Deputy Foley, to allow him an opportunity to make a submission on the fairness of those proceedings.
That was the background to the decision. During the course of discussions and submissions on the memorandum of proceedings an indication was given by Deputy Foley that he would enter a guilty plea. It was the committee's job to make certain findings under the Act, whether the charge was major or minor and whether in the commission of the offence Deputy Foley was negligent, reckless or otherwise. This led to the report before the House.
I am glad the report, the first of its kind under the Act, has been the subject of much comment. This discussion is useful. As the chairman mentioned, it would be helpful if those who wish to comment read the report first. It would also be helpful if they read the provisions of the Act on which the report is based.
I have no intention of defending the report. Everybody did the best they could and produced what they considered to be a fair report. It is important to state that the committee was not involved in penalising Deputy Foley in relation to his Ansbacher account or in any criminal or revenue matter arising therefrom. The statement of contravention related solely to non-declaration at the time a vote was taken in the House.
In determining the penalty account was taken of the fact that the respondent had co-operated with the committee and did not seek to prolong or obstruct the investigation or to challenge evidence to be given to the committee. Account was also taken of the fact that other more serious charges could be made. The committee looked at the situation in other jurisdictions. Members will recall the cash for questions issue dealt with by a similar committee in the United Kingdom. The committee also took account of the fact that no tangible benefit was conferred on Deputy Foley as a result of the defeat of the amendment in which he participated.
There are a number of issues which need to be borne in mind for the future. As the chairman mentioned, there is a range of penalties. Any penalty for a Member is serious in the sense that it is a decision of his or her peers to censure him or her in one way or other. Account has also to be taken of the fact that for the future Members of this or our sister House will not be in a position to state in defence that they were merely following the party whip. If there is any question of a material interest, it is the responsibility of the Member concerned to declare it. This debate is useful in that it brings home that obligation to Members.
The report has been subject to criticism. If there is a need to review the operation of the Act – this was the first case of its kind – let us have an informed debate and let us look at what is happening in other jurisdictions. Given all the allegations that have been made, is the Act sufficient to deal with all difficulties being encountered in the body politic? Pending such a review, the decision of the committee, with which I fully agree – it was a unanimous decision – was made within the confines of the existing Act. On that basis I commend it to the House.
I support the resolution and the unanimous view of the committee on the matter before the House. Article 15.10 of the Constitution states that each House shall make its own rules and Standing Orders with power to attach penalties for their infringement. Apart from issues of order, in which the Leas-Cheann Comhairle is particularly interested, codes of conduct were never properly explored. The provisions of Article 15 of the Constitution were never fully seized to lay down rules of behaviour and mechanisms to enforce them in the House. The Ethics in Public Office Act was the first major attempt to do so.
Before the Committee on Members' Interests was a charge that a Member of the House had breached section 7 of the Ethics in Public Office Act. It was a narrow issue, that a Member voted on a matter in which he had a material interest without making a declaration to this effect. That was all the committee could look into. All the other matters written about in recent days were not part of the discussions or focus of the committee. If Deputy Foley had informed the Clerk of the House or made a statement that he had an interest in the issue, that would have fulfilled his obligations under the Act and there would have been no investigation and no penalty.
The penalties available to the committee are laid down in law. Section 28 of the Act contains a graduated scale of penalties. Where there is discerned breach of the Act, a report noting that breach is placed before the House. For more serious offences the House may be called on to censure the Member concerned. For the most serious breaches, suspension may be recommended. It was in this latter category that the committee placed the breach in question, the subject of the motion before the House.
The advice available to the framers of the original Act was that it was not possible to impose a monetary penalty, in other words, to debar a Member from receiving his or her salary during a period of suspension, as this would trespass on the rights of the courts to impose penalties. I disagree with this view. It is an issue which we will have to revisit. Article 15 of the Constitution makes it clear that the House can make its own rules and regulations. Under the rules available to the House of Commons and the United States Congress in Washington, a Member can be debarred or thrown out for serious misconduct. This area has to be revisited now. Many people have described the Act as cautious and I agree, but it is a monumental first step. We need to revisit the range of issues about which Members and the public could complain so there is a clear code of conduct understood by Members and the public. We also have to revisit the penalties appropriate to offences committed. The House must take notice of the timidity which can rightly be levelled against the Act in the context of revisiting ethics standards currently afoot. I assure the House that the Labour Party will play a full part in that process as it did when framing the original legislation when we sought to establish codes of conduct enforceable by law.
In essence, the report and the motion are small but highly significant first steps. For the first time, this House has set out in statute, standards of behaviour which must be complied with. It has also set up a process of investigation and those who read the report will have some understanding of the way in which the investigation was carried out. I concur with my Fine Gael colleague that this was done in a totally non-partisan, non-political manner and I heartily commend the chairman, Deputy Killeen, for his outstanding role in ensuring that scrupulous standards were maintained during the process.
It was explained to us that the process would be the model for the future and that we could not make mistakes. Natural and constitutional justice were complied with to the nth degree. A sanctions regime is available to the House. Many people spoke of slaps on the wrist or inadequate penalties but it was the statutory range of penalties decided upon by the Oireachtas. It is time to revisit these penalties. This was the range of penalties available to the committee and an unbiased observer with full knowledge of all the facts would accept that the committee's decision was a fair determination. While the committee hopes it will not be faced with many investigations, Members know that mechanisms are in place by which the standards of this House and public life can be vindicated.
(Dublin West): A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I should have an opportunity to speak on this matter.
There is no such provision in the order agreed by the House today. The Deputy called a division on this issue and the House made its decision.
Question put and declared carried.