Enda Kenny
Question:1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach when the new code of conduct for office holders under the provisions of the Ethics in Public Office Act 2001 will be completed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19561/03]
Ceisteanna – Questions. - Ethics in Public Office Act.
Pat Rabbitte
Question:2 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach when he expects the new code of conduct for office holders under the Ethics in Public Office Act 2001 will become operational; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22159/03]
Trevor Sargent
Question:3 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach when the new code of conduct for office holders under the Ethics in Public Office Act will become operational; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23082/03]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:4 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the status of the new code of conduct for office holders under the Ethics of Public Office Act 2001; when he expects it to come into effect; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24085/03]
Joe Higgins
Question:5 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach when he expects the new code of conduct for office holders under the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995 to come into effect; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24872/03]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, together.
I refer the Deputies to my reply to Questions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, concerning the code of conduct for office holders, which I answered on 25 June 2003. The Standards in Public Office Act 2001, an initiative of the previous Government, requires the Government to draw up a code of conduct for the guidance of office holders. The Standards in Public Office Commission was consulted during drafting and the views offered were, by and large, reflected in the code. As the Act specifies, the purpose of the code is to indicate the standards of conduct and integrity for office holders in the performance of their functions. The Standards in Public Office Commission published the code on 3 July 2003, from which date it applies prospectively.
When the Taoiseach was first elected in 1997 he promised the people in his programme for Government that he would restore public confidence in public life through credible policing mechanisms for ethical issues. Subsequently, at his Ard-Fheis in 1998, he said that public trust requires integrity and a genuine dedication to public service. As regards the code of conduct and ethics and arising from the recent well publicised tax problems of Deputy Collins and the Taoiseach's failure to take action at the time, will he agree that the new code of conduct should include mandatory reporting by office holders of any breaches of ethics legislation which come to their attention? Does the Taoiseach believe that matter should be included in the code of conduct? Should he have been obliged to ensure that the Standards in Public Office Commission was informed of a problem of which he was aware rather than learning about it through the media?
The draft code of conduct, which was circulated during the summer, includes a provision which requires that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to the Houses of the Oireachtas correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. In view of the recent revelations that the Taoiseach's then special adviser on Northern Ireland, with his imprimatur, had a face to face meeting with the alleged—
The Deputy is going beyond the content of the five questions.
I am not. I am talking about the code of conduct and ethics.
It is a general question. The Deputy should not get into the detail.
I understand, but the code of conduct, which was circulated, states that Ministers should give accurate and truthful information to the Houses of the Oireachtas correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Given that the Taoiseach belatedly clarified a matter for the record of the House, does he consider that is a matter which should be—
We cannot have a detailed debate on all aspects of that issue.
I am only giving an example.
The Deputy's question is to ask the Taoiseach when the new code of conduct for office holders under the provisions of the Ethics in Public Office Act 2001 will be completed.
It also states: "and if he will make a statement on the matter".
You, a Cheann Comhairle, told me many years ago when you were not in that Chair that the way to get information in this House was to table a question in such a way that the Minister might not realise what was behind it. That was valuable information.
The Chair must implement Standing Orders.
Does the Taoiseach consider that the provision in the code of conduct about ethical information should have been adhered to in his own case? Does the Taoiseach accept that the findings in a recent Sunday newspaper that 50% of respondents believe that politicians are corrupt is a shocking indictment of the Government's failure over the past six years to address the issue of ethics in public office?
The Deputy is going well beyond the content of the question.
Ring Joe Duffy for advice.
Deputy Kenny asked a number of questions. The code covers the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, Ministers, Ministers of State, the Attorney General, who is a Member of the Oireachtas, a person who is Deputy Chair of Dáil Éireann or Deputy Chair of Seanad Éireann and the joint committees of both Houses of the Oireachtas. The code, which is based on the Standards in Public Office Act, is good.
As regards the question about a Deputy's tax problems, that is bound under the 1995 Act and the amended Act of 2001. I know that anything which is not brought to my attention will come out in the public domain because it will be in the statutory report. I was informed in that case that it would come out in a statutory report and that it would be subject to the Standards in Public Office Act. The Deputy was aware of that. The only difference was that the Deputy understood that the report would come out the following week, but it did not come out for some time. The Deputy is dealing with those issues and with his party.
I agree totally that the House should be kept fully informed on all issues. The difficulty which has arisen in the context of recent issues – at other times also – is that when one is asked a question about a certain period, one is subject to one's recall or someone else's reminders. It is not always possible to recall the events of a more extended period. As soon as this issue was raised, I dealt with it but, in principle, I agree completely with what the Deputy said. It has always been a rule for Ministers and me that if one realises one has not given the full facts to the House or misled it, which did not happen in this case, this should be placed on the record of the House.
Deputy Kenny asked about the public's opinion of whether politicians were corrupt. We have an ongoing job to do in this House, as do parliamentarians everywhere. We have dealt with our own issues through a whole series of Acts but it is always the case that when anything such as this occurs, everybody in the House is affected. In general, politicians are hard-working and decent but there are always some breaches of the rules which must be dealt with. I do not want to make any comment about recent events because they are all subject to investigation, some in coming weeks. We must all work to make sure this code, with older legislation, is properly implemented. I will also play my part.
As I do not want to go against the Taoiseach's wishes by going into the details of the case of a Deputy on his own benches, my question will be a general one. What is the merit of the tax clearance certificate in circumstances such as those mentioned by Deputy Kenny? Is it not the case that the public would assume one's tax affairs were in order if one had a certificate?
I draw the Deputy's attention to the point I raised with Deputy Kenny. The five questions with which we are dealing are unrelated to the issue the Deputy is raising. He will have to find another way to raise it.
What is the value of the reference in the code to a tax clearance certificate—
The Deputy has made his point. The Taoiseach may make a brief response, if he wishes.
—if it is not meant to convey what the public considers it to convey?
It is important to have tax clearance certificates. I do not have full details of the case mentioned but this issue is being investigated. However, the public is entitled to be sure, if we go to the trouble of obtaining tax clearance certificates, that they prove our affairs are in order. I thought that was the case but we will have to wait to find out what happened in this instance. I agree with the Deputy – a tax clearance certificate should be comprehensive. The whole idea was that the certificate would prove to the public and us that a person's affairs were in order. There should not be any way around this.
The code distributed on 3 July contains quite a number of powers. It states it is open to the Oireachtas to impose sanctions on office holders. How can this be done if the Government is able to swing the result every time, no matter what the Oireachtas per se wishes to do? There is a requirement for the Taoiseach, members of the Cabinet and Ministers of State to provide accurate and truthful information. There is also the question of Ministers and Ministers of State using official facilities to raise their own profiles. Is there a need for change to ensure the Government does not have the last word? We would then have more genuine Oireachtas decisions.
Why did the Taoiseach not correct the record in the instance referred to by Deputy Kenny? It is 11 months since—
Again, that matter does not arise from this question. It is a general question on—
I know but it is worthy of a reply, given that we are talking about a code—
The question submitted relates to a particular issue.
I am simply asking whether the code is worth anything. As you will be aware, a Cheann Comhairle, the Green Party is in favour of giving you more power to challenge members of the Government to ensure answers are truthful and complete.
We are concerned that you might over-utilise it, a Cheann Comhairle.
Will the Taoiseach indicate whether the Government would be in favour of you having such power in order that you would be more than a timekeeper following the minimalist approach to Standing Orders?
The code refers to value for money. Does the Taoiseach regard as value for money the €1.6 million spent on transport for 17 Ministers of State and the €2.9 million for Ministers? Is there a need to examine serious facts that are emerging on value for money as regard expenditure by office holders?
That matter does not arise from this question.
I wonder how useful is the code—
I suggest the Deputy table a question to the appropriate Minister.
I will do so, a Cheann Comhairle, but we are talking about the code. I wonder if it is worth the paper on which it is written.
Before the Taoiseach replies, on the question of the Chair, no Chair would be in a position to judge the value or otherwise of an answer to a question from a Minister. It would be impossible for a Chair to know that. While Members might think the answer was excellent, the Chair might not agree.
You are too self-effacing, a Cheann Comhairle.
The Chair will not be taking on the responsibility of adjudicating—
You have been around a long time, a Cheann Comhairle.
—on whether an answer from a Minister is a good one.
They need all the help they can get, a Cheann Comhairle.
The Minister would be surprised to know who needed the help.
I repeat that the code arises from the Standards in Public Office Act 2001 which builds on the 1995 Act and the other initiatives brought forward. It has merit. It is a detailed set of practices with which individuals must comply. It is written clearly and administered by a high powered group which will deal with the regulation of office holders. It conforms fully with statutory requirements. As I said to Deputy Kenny, there was extensive consultation with the Standards in Public Office Commission in its preparation. It complements the many other ethics requirements set out in legislation and the guidelines which have to be observed by office holders, including those which have been in place for years and others which have been updated.
The House will not be doing a good job if, when we bring forward tough legislation and other rules, we say they are worth nothing. The fact is that any breaches or complaints about them by the public, the media, any Member of this House or anyone involved in the political system or outside are investigated in a detailed way. We know this from the few cases which have arisen so far. This area is far more regulated than in many others places, with which I have no difficulty. That is what we set out to do in this House but we should not say it is not worth anything. It is worth everything. I have no doubt that as time passes, it will be improved, if necessary, but this has not been proved.
I have already answered the other question for Deputy Kenny. When answering a question about an issue, it is not always possible to cover all the points contained in it. One is subject to recalling everything that has happened or somebody pointing out something. That is what happened in the instance mentioned. I agree, however, that questions should be dealt with when one has to deal with them.
I have no comment to make on the Chair. The matter is governed by Standing Orders as well as by what the Chair said.
Eleven months.
This is the trouble when a Member of the Oireachtas does not even know what is in the code, or in the standards in public office legislation. It is governed by the Standards in Public Office Commission which is chaired by Mr. Justice Smith. It has enormous powers of investigation and so on – far more than most parliaments have, with which I agree. It is not Government – it is a legislative measure by a high powered group with considerable powers to deal with any breach. That is what it is.
The Oireachtas decides which means the Government decides. That is the point.
It does not.
What provision is there for revisiting the code of conduct for office holders? Is there a process to accommodate improvement? Is a review intended? Very importantly, how will compliance be monitored? Is the Taoiseach aware that the section entitled, Accountability to the Houses of the Oireachtas, states that it is of paramount importance that office holders give accurate and truthful information to the Houses of the Oireachtas? Is he aware that the appropriate counterpart to that in terms of the Assembly in the North is a far more detailed and accommodating provision? It states that Ministers must ensure all reasonable requests for information from the Assembly, users of services and individual citizens are complied with. That is a much stronger guarantee and a much better statement of intent in terms of conduct. How is it proposed to try to improve on what is now detailed? Does the Taoiseach agree there are examples of better approach, better formulation of words and greater guarantees in terms of that which applies in the Assembly?
Does the Taoiseach not recognise that time and again, even if the Ceann Comhairle is not prepared to recognise the nature of some of the responses here, that, invariably, questions put to the Minister for Health and Children are referred to the individual health boards?
That does not arise out of these questions.
A recent question to the Minister of State, Deputy Ahern—
I call the Taoiseach on the first question.
—elicited no information but the detail requested appeared some days later in the national media.
Sorry, Deputy, we are dealing with Questions Nos. 1 to 5.
Does the Taoiseach agree that Ministers have an obligation—
Sorry, Deputy, you will have to find another way to raise that matter.
—to be open and fulsome in the provision of information to Members of this House in this Chamber?
I call the Taoiseach on the first question.
I am anxious to hear the Taoiseach's response on the issue of monitoring compliance.
Deputy, it does not arise out of these questions.
It does, a Cheann Comhairle, with respect.
It does not. We are dealing with Questions Nos. 1 to 5.
Deputy Ó Caoláin asked me about the Standards in Public Office Commission. The code was completed in July arising from the 2001 legislation, so I do not believe there is a requirement at this stage to conduct a review. No doubt, if any points come up, they will be brought to the attention of the commission. I believe people try to give a full account to this House.
Will the Taoiseach indicate how compliance will be monitored?
Sorry, Deputy, I call Deputy Rabbitte.
If there is a breach, the commission will examine it.
Can the House take it that all Ministers and Ministers of State have signed up to the code of conduct? Is that also the case with all chairpersons of committees? I refer to section 2.2.4, for example, which expressly provides that an office holder shall not carry out a professional practice and must desist. Chairpersons are encompassed in the term "office holder" for the purposes of the code of conduct. Have chairpersons of committee signed up to the code?
It is a code which people should follow. It is there for people to observe and they should do so. Office holders are not prohibited from being directors but they are advised that it would be better if they were not. If I recall correctly, they are not allowed to take paid directorships. It is equally suggested it would be better if they were not directors in an unpaid capacity. The code is applicable to everyone on the list.
The question I asked the Taoiseach was whether all office holders have signed up to the code of conduct.
There is no question of signing – there is no signing procedure. There is a code, arising from the legislation, to which people are subject. It is like any code of practice to which people are subject. I do not know of anyone who has demurred from attempting to comply with the code.
What steps has the Taoiseach taken to ensure that the code is being observed by all office holders to whom it applies? I draw his attention to the fact that the Ethics in Public Office Act defines "office holder" as including chairpersons of committees. Can I understand his first answer to mean that some persons hold non-executive directorships and that it would be better if they did not?
My original question related to professional practice. An office holder should not carry on a professional practice during his tenure.
I agree with that. The code addresses the issue of business and other interests by requiring that office holders do not engage in any activities which could reasonably be regarded as being incompatible with the discharge of the duties of their office. Where the legislation gives specific incidents of behaviour where conflict of interest is possible the code requests office holders to observe the broad principle involved.
I have answered Deputy Rabbitte's question with regard to Ministers and Ministers of State. I have not observed it with regard to chairmen or to the Cathaoirleach or Leas-Chathaoirleach of the Seanad. They are still subject to the code.
What about committees?
The code is there for chairs of committees, but they are not mandatorily bound to abide by it.
Are they abiding by it?
Deputy McManus, you have not been called. I call Deputy Sargent. I will call Deputy McManus again, time permitting.
This is disgraceful.
How can one follow up the value for money aspect of the code? Can the Garda press office determine where a ministerial car may travel? Does that part of the code need to be further clarified? If the Tánaiste flies to Manorhamilton to open an off-licence and her driver collects her from the airport, does this represent good value for money? Are there guidelines as to what is good value for money, which would help us in seeing that the code is being implemented?
The terms are set out in the code for people to follow.
Does it include off-licences in Manorhamilton?
Or any other place. There are rules governing office holders and they are re-enacted in this code. Office holders are bound by conduct of their office. I do not think chairmen are bound by the same code but Ministers and Ministers of State certainly are. Apart from the code, Ministers and Ministers of State are bound by the rules regarding whether they can hold executive or non-executive directorships. The code sets out those rules but chairs of committees are treated rather differently because they are not included in the book on office holders. They are asked to follow the code but they are not governed by the legislation which governs the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, Ministers and Ministers of State.
Given that the Taoiseach continues to respond in minimalist terms and evasion is one of his great skills, when does he intend to be compliant with the code of conduct?
I think I am fully compliant.
I think I have today demonstrated that he is not.
While I accept, a Cheann Comhairle, that it is difficult for you to judge whether we are getting worthwhile answers, it ought not be difficult for you when a point is being pursued and the Taoiseach is about to answer. The question I asked, which the Taoiseach was about to answer, was whether he had satisfied himself that all office holders are observing the terms of the code of conduct.
On the latter point the Taoiseach raised, I understand exactly what he is talking about in terms of the traditional notion of office holders in the form of Ministers and Ministers of State. In his own code of conduct, "office holder" is described as the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, a Minister of the Government, a Minister of State, the Attorney General, a Chairman or Deputy Chairman of Dáil Éireann or Seanad Éireann or a chairman of a committee of either House of the Oireachtas. It is in that regard that I am using the term "office holder". Has the Taoiseach satisfied himself that the chairpersons of the various committees are observing the code of conduct?
I read out the categories. Under the wider Act, I am duty-bound to check office holders under the old title, which is Ministers and Ministers of State. I have not done so for chairmen of committees. Since 3 July, I have not checked chairmen of committees, or for that matter the Ceann Comhairle or the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad. Whether it is a matter for the Government or the commission to do this is another issue. I have not done it and I am not saying anybody is in breach of the requirement. It is a code that should be followed. Under the ethics Acts, I have to deal with office holders, as defined by Deputy Rabbitte – Ministers and Ministers of State – but I have not dealt with chairmen of the Houses and chairmen of committees. To do so would mean dealing with people from across all parties and I have not done that.
What is the point of having a code of conduct if we do not know whether the people to whom it applies are observing it? Will the Taoiseach take steps to establish whether it is being observed? Has the Taoiseach satisfied himself that none of his Ministers of State, for example, is carrying out professional practice or other business that is not permitted under the Acts? I am not referring to the literary output of the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, in the Sunday Independent.
It is artistic.
It is creative anyway.
It hardly qualifies as professional.
It sometimes qualifies for misconduct. I ask the Taoiseach again about the question of non-executive directors. Is he saying that somewhere encompassed in the posts defined as office holder there are non-executive directors? He has said this is a practice that he would rather not see. Are there any such directors or are we having an academic discussion?
While it is an academic discussion, the public office commission has pointed out that people should not hold such positions. My interpretation, subject to checking, is that this is a code drawn up to cover everyone to whom it applies in the House. It is everybody's obligation to comply with it. As head of Government, it is my job to deal with Ministers and Ministers of State. I do not think it is my job to check others, particularly non-members of Government. It is a matter for the public office commission to do this and I do not think it would be appropriate for me to delve into that. It is a code with which everyone should be complying.
Deputy Rabbitte asked about policing. I do not think I am the person to police this, other than with reference to Ministers and Ministers of State.
Who then will monitor and observe?
The Standards in Public Office Commission, which is a statutory body, will do so. If the position suggested by Deputy Ó Caoláin were so, then it would definitely be a case of the Government policing the Government. The reason we set up the commission and gave it powers and legal status was so that it would be the arbitrator in these matters. It has set out the code—
The Taoiseach did not set it up.
The House set it up. It was as a result of my proposal, by the way.
There was a lack of sanctions.
It was to police these particular issues that we set up such a body. I set it up.
Does the Taoiseach agree it should be mandatory for an office holder, if he or she becomes aware of information, to report it, in view of the ethics that apply to the office held?
It depends on the circumstances and on what one is told. If Deputy Kenny is referring back to his earlier question, if somebody informs you that he or she will be listed in a report of what is an independent arm of the State and that that will be dealt with by the Standards in Public Office Commission, I do not see that the position will be as suggested by the Deputy. The person is telling you a fact. He or she is telling you not that he or she might be involved with an arm of the State, but that he or she will be so involved. The person is telling you positively that that will mean that he or she will be investigated by the commission. On that basis I do not think it is a matter for you to report.
Where the code requires office holders, meaning Ministers, to answer fully and truthfully before the House, what recourse does a Member have, for example, in circumstances where a member of Government says that the Attorney General and his staff were involved in a particular incident right through, and the Attorney General and his staff say they were not? What recourse has a Member of the House in that case?
It depends on whether the person is raising it on the basis of fact or fiction. I know of the case the Deputy refers to and I have answered fully that issue. If there is some other case, the Deputy should raise it with the Ceann Comhairle.