In supporting the motion as amended and having listened carefully to the earlier contributions, it is clear there is broad cross-party support for moving ahead on an all-party basis towards an agreed and enforceable code of conduct for Members of the Oireachtas.
Recent events have highlighted the need for us as elected Members of the Dáil to be enthusiastic and proactive in this regard. However, this does not mean we should be driven only by the politics of the last scandal as interpreted by the media or elsewhere or that we should as a group buy into the now common assertion that all of us are tainted by the acts or omissions of a few. I, and I am sure many Members agree, do not accept a vicarious responsibility for the misconduct of a handful of Deputies over the years who have acted improperly or in a way that brings the Dáil and our profession of politics into disrepute. If we start to accept that populist and anti-intellectual nonsense, we will only contribute to the debasement of politics.
During the debate last night, there was predictable, unfortunate and misplaced criticism of the Government for not taking the initiative on a code for Members. The Executive has no function in determining the rules of procedure of the Houses of the Oireachtas. Article 15.10 of the Constitution provides that this is a matter for each House. In any event, far from being remiss in the area of ethics in public life, the facts show that we have a detailed cohort of legislation across a broad spectrum. I refer in particular to the Ethics in Public Office Act, the Electoral Act and the Standards in Public Office Act, which, after consultation with committees of the House, envisages a code of conduct for Members. Other legislation in the pipeline relates to whistle blowers in addition to the Prevention of Corruption Bill, 2000, with proposed amendments to provide for the prevention, prosecution and punishment of corruption. The Local Government Bill, 2000, also proposes a comprehensive regime for local authorities, public registers of councillors and senior officials and codes of conduct for members and staff.
The motion was understandably prompted by a perceived impotence on the part of the House and the weakness of the current Standing Orders to act when a sitting Member was found to be in contempt of court and jailed accordingly. Members, and the public generally, were extremely frustrated that, notwithstanding a raft of ethical provisions on the Statute Book, there was no effective mechanism through which the House as Parliament could indicate its disapproval or sanction misconduct which fell short of criminality or insolvency. Some of us felt it was an inadequate response to say that the ultimate sanction lay with the electorate. It should be possible, even given the constitutional limitations, for us as elected Members to agree sanctions, short of expulsion. Other professions so regulate their members and we owe it to ourselves to at least consider this matter in depth and devise a reasonable and responsible regime.
However, I am reluctant to outline at this stage an overly prescriptive or exhaustive formula. It is not appropriate for one party or an individual Deputy to declare what that code should be without an in-depth analysis politically and legally of the implications and workability of the proposed code. A major concern is the potential danger of the partisan use of the code by a majority in the Dáil against a minority. Safeguards must be built in to guard against this potential abuse of a code.
Although the motion is valuable, a prolonged public debate on these issues, particularly in a party political climate, may feed into what has become a near obsession with political sleaze. The debate, therefore, should be purposeful, reasonable and finite if we are to avoid unduly diminishing the primacy of politics and the standing of the Dáil itself in the eyes of the public. While this debate was fuelled by embarrassment and frustration on the part of Deputies on all sides, arising from the misconduct of a particular Member, it is also properly motivated by a desire to protect the House as Parliament and an institution in our democracy.
The Dáil is the principal organ of accountability in our democracy. It is to the Dáil, and not to the Government or the Opposition, that Ministers and the Executive are accountable. None of the tribunals would have been necessary if the Dáil had been competent as a vehicle of accountability. If parliamentary questions had been honestly and completely answered, there would have been no need for the beef tribunal, the hepatitis C tribunal or other inquiries and the current tribunals which are dominating public life and discourse.
The pathetic fact is that, unfortunately, Ministers in all Governments have misled the House. This perhaps is the most fundamental offence against Parliament. In some cases, civil servants and officials were necessarily and undoubtedly involved. Who can forget the note on the file in the Department of Agriculture, as disclosed in the beef tribunal, which stated in the margin of a reply to a parliamentary question "That should confuse the Deputy"?
During my five years of experience in Oppo sition of tabling questions to various Ministers and Departments, I was regularly in receipt of misleading, incomplete and evasive replies to parliamentary requests for information to which I was entitled. If we are talking about the primacy of the Dáil and ways to protect it and make it a sovereign organ of our democracy, independent of the Executive, the role of civil and public servants in replying to parliamentary questions is central. In this context, it is important to note that the Standards in Public Office Bill embraces the conduct of all persons in public life.
Section 7 of the Bill accordingly provides that codes of conduct will be drawn up in consultation with the Standards in Public Office Commission by the Government in the case of office holders and the Minister for Finance in the case of public servants generally. In the case of Oireachtas Members, the Bill as published provides that a code of conduct will be drawn up by the commission in consultation with the relevant House of the Oireachtas, but can only be applied to Members by a resolution of the House. I understand the Minister will bring forward an amendment on Committee Stage to the effect that drafting the code will be done by the Select Committee on Members' Interests. It appears the provisions of the Bill have considerable consequences for the workings of our democratic institutions. The Bill also requires Oireachtas Members and the most senior public servants and judges to have tax clearance certificates.
The passing of the motion, as amended, will be an important part of an ethics related reform process and demonstrates that the House, as distinct from the Government, is at one on the goal of achieving the highest standards in public life. In a way, this debate is part of a painful and exposing period in public affairs. Recent times have been demoralising for many of us involved in public life and the public generally. Many, if not all, our institutions have been found wanting in terms of accountability and honesty. The public interest has not come first; the Dáil, at times, has failed in its primary function. It was a scandal of enormous proportions that child abuse, state neglect of citizens in respect of the hepatitis C scandal and maladministration was concealed from the public and the Dáil for too long. Many individuals' lives were damaged or destroyed as a result.
The Dáil has had some limited success in revealing and punishing wrongdoing by the State and its institutions. Those of us in Opposition and the Executive are first and foremost Members of the Dáil; our first allegiance is to the people through the House and perhaps this should be the first commandment in any new proposed code of conduct. If we as representatives of the people lose sight of the basic principle that we are first and foremost Members of the Dáil, the role of the House could be gradually eroded. It is our job as elected Members to defend the Dáil and the primacy of politics. We must, however, be careful not to unwittingly undermine the integrity of democratic politics by a party political debate or by parroting the clichés of cynical elements in the media.