Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 13 Jul 1995

Vol. 144 No. 10

Ethics in Public Office Bill, 1994: Second Stage.

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

Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise and Employment (Ms E. Fitzgerald)

This is the first time I have been in the Seanad since the death of two Members. I offer my deepest sympathy on the death of two fine Senators, Senator Gordon Wilson and Senator Seán Fallon. I offer you, a Chathaoirligh, my best wishes. I know you will discharge your onerous duties extremely well, as you did in your capacity as Leas-Chathaoirleach.

The Ethics in Public Office Bill is important legislation in which Members of the Oireachtas have taken a particular interest. It was keenly debated in the Dáil and I look forward to the debate in the Upper House. The Bill is about promoting a more open approach to public office by those who serve the public. At its heart is the provision whereby elected representatives and key public servants will declare their interests.

People who hold public office — politicians, Ministers, civil servants, those running our State companies — are in positions of public trust and are guardians of the public interest. That is a cornerstone of our administrative and political systems. We can be proud of the values of public service which have characterised those systems. In an increasingly complex business and financial environment, the mechanisms to identify and deal with potential conflicts of interest, which this Bill provides, are an important safeguard that those values of public service will continue to prevail.

The Bill creates the framework where the public can have confidence that those who work in the public's name are working on behalf of the public interest. This Bill will show the public that people in positions of public influence keep their public duties and their personal private interests as separate.

The Bill provides for a register of interests of people in key public positions — Oireachtas Members and Ministers; the Attorney General; senior civil and public servants; board members and senior executives of State companies; and Ministers' special advisers. It sets out new rules in relation to acceptance of gifts by office holders. It introduces greater openness and accountability into personal appointments by office holders. It provides for an independent commission to oversee key provisions of the Bill and to investigate complaints.

The central provisions of the Bill relate to the disclosure of private interests where these could give rise to a conflict of interest for people in key positions in Irish public life. The Bill provides for two types of disclosure: first, an annual statement of interests and, second, ad hoc declarations where a conflict of interest could directly arise in the performance of one's official duties.

The model of disclosure has common features for each category covered under the Bill, with certain differences reflecting such factors as Executive versus purely parliamentary duties, the specific or wide remit of the office held and whether the interests are those of a private citizen or someone in public life. Under the Bill, Oireachtas Members must set out annual statements of their interests in a public register. The interests to be declared in the register are as follows: outside income, shares and directorships, land, but not the family home, gifts other than personal gifts, public contracts and work as a paid lobbyist.

These interests are similar to those listed in other Parliaments. Interests below a threshold value do not have to be disclosed, that is, assets or shares worth less than £10,000, income under £2,000 or gifts worth under £500. In no case is disclosure of the amount of income or the value of the interest required.

In addition, when speaking or voting in the Houses of the Oireachtas, Members will be required to make a formal declaration if the issue involves a potential conflict of interest for themselves or a connected person, that is, a close relative or business partner. A simple statement that the Member has an interest is sufficient.

As people holding Executive positions, Ministers and other office holders are required to make a more comprehensive declaration of interests than ordinary Members. In addition to the annual declaration of their own personal interests which, in common with other Members, forms part of the public register, Ministers are required to make an additional private declaration of the interests of their spouses and children which are known to them and which could have a bearing on their public duties.

The Taoiseach and the independent commission must be informed where a Minister proposes to exercise a function of his or her office which could potentially benefit themselves, their immediate family or business associates, or benefit another Minister. These provisions are to ensure there is no inside track for people connected to Ministers.

Senior public servants and members and senior executives of State boards are required to make annual declarations, which are private, in respect of their own interests or interests of which they know of their spouse and children which could have a bearing on their public duties. They are likewise required to make once-off declarations where a potential conflict of interest, involving themselves or close connections, could arise in the performance of official duties.

Furthermore, they are generally prohibited, as a term of their conditions of appointment or employment, from performing a function where there is a conflict of interest unless there are compelling reasons for doing so. In such cases these reasons must be given in writing to the relevant authority and made available to the independent commission. These rules are based on the existing guidelines which operate for senior executives and board members of State companies.

In relation to where disclosure requirements differ, those in executive positions, such as Ministers, public servants and board members of State companies, are required to make the most comprehensive statements of interests. Their annual declarations shall include those interests of a spouse or children which are known to them which could have a potential bearing on their public duties. Ordinary Members of the Oireachtas are not required to make annual statements in respect of the interests of their spouses or children.

All Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas, including office holders, are required to make a public disclosure of their personal interests, as are senior special advisers personally appointed by Ministers. The public disclosure requirement of Members is fully in line with the requirements of registers of Members' interests abroad. Those with general remits, such as Ministers and Oireachtas Members, are required to make a comprehensive listing of all their personal interests, while those with a specific remit, for example, those working in a specific Department or State company, are only required to declare those interests in their annual statements which could have a bearing on their duties in that Department or State body. All other annual statements by groups covered by the Bill will be confidential and overseen by an independent commission.

The Bill is careful to strike a balance between serving the public interest through disclosure and respecting the legitimate right to personal privacy. Statements which are made by Ministers, senior public servants or board members in respect of interests of a spouse or child will be confidential. These statements will be made available to the independent commission. Any unauthorised disclosure of such information will constitute a criminal offence.

The Bill is not just about disclosure of interests. Apart from addressing the separation of public and private interests, the Bill also deals with gifts to office holders and with the appointment of personal advisers and assistants by Ministers. The Bill provides that any gift worth over £500 given to a Minister, their spouse or child by virtue of that ministerial office becomes the property of the State.

As regards personal appointments by office holders, for example, personal assistants or special advisers, the Bill provides that these will be temporary and will cease when the office holder leaves office. The Government will be precluded from appointing such persons to permanent positions in the Civil Service. This gives legal effect to what is already established practice. The Bill also provides for publication of details of all such personal appointments.

An independent commission will oversee key provisions of the Bill in respect of office holders, special advisers, public servants, including civil servants, and senior executives of State boards. The commission will undertake the investigation of complaints of possible contraventions in respect of these groups. The commission will comprise the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Ombudsman, the Ceann Comhairle, the Clerk of the Dáil and the Clerk of the Seanad.

Due to the constitutional independence of the Houses of the Oireachtas in regulating their own affairs, the Bill provides for special overseeing arrangements in respect of ordinary Members. Select committees of each House will oversee the provisions of the Bill in relation to ordinary Members of that House and will report to that House. The select committees may recommend a range of sanctions for any Oireachtas Member found in breach of the Bill. The commission and select committees have power to investigate complaints and act on their own initiative, backed up by comprehensive powers to summon witnesses. They will also issue guidelines on compliance with the provisions of the Bill and may provide advice in individual cases. Part II of the Bill, which covers the Houses of the Oireachtas, is brought into being in respect of each House by a resolution of the House itself.

The Bill is comprehensive but fair. It promotes openness by elected representatives, but respects the privacy of third parties. It sets out unequivocal requirements to be met where a conflict of interest may arise. It establishes effective support and investigative mechanisms.

I wish to draw the attention of the House to certain minor textual corrections which I seek to have made by the Clerk under the direction of the Cathaoirleach. The heading PART IV, THE PUBLIC SERVICE on page 23 is in the wrong place. It should be placed on page 22, that is, before rather than after section 16. Following the deletion of paragraph (d) in section 22 on Report Stage in the Dáil, we need to remove the reference to that paragraph by correcting subsections (2) and (3) to fully take account of that deletion. On page 48 in the Second Schedule, for the sake of textual clarity, we need to move the text at line 47 and to the end of the paragraph under the (b) in line 36.

I commend the Bill to the House.

An Cathaoirleach

I am directing the Clerk to make the corrections outlined in accordance with Standing Order 100.

Mr. R. Kiely

I welcome the Minister to the House. I agree with the Bill although it is not necessary. There were always ethics in public office, particularly as far as politicians were concerned. I have no problem declaring my interests, especially my bank overdraft which proves I will comply with the Bill.

I recall one occasion when a colleague, who was an Independent at the time but is now a member of Fine Gael, and I were in the bar discussing shares. I and another colleague bought 1,000 shares, a minimal amount. However, my other colleague subsequently got into trouble about the shares. Small matters such as this should be overlooked.

Under this Bill one must declare one's interests. If there is a conflict of interest, it will be pointed out. Matters such as the case I outlined should not be highlighted to such an extent as to cause embarrassment to any office holder. I hope this aspect will be covered by the Bill.

Mr. Enright

I welcome the Minister to the House. It is my first time to speak since the Cathaoirleach's election and I wish him success in that position. I am certain he will be fair, impartial and diligent in the discharge of his duties. I wish the Cathaoirleach and his wife and family every happiness during his period in office.

There has always been a necessity to have the highest possible standards in public office. In my time in public life, I have been impressed by the level of dedication of people elected to public office. I have been a member of Offaly County Council for a long time and I am impressed by the honesty and openness of my fellow members representing different political parties. I have not had any reason to query the honesty of any member of Offaly County Council. Similarly, in my experience in Leinster House, the people I have met have made a genuine effort to be open and fair in doing business. The people have elected to public office individuals who have been able to discharge their duties in a fair and open manner.

Politics is a great calling and a noble profession. We need to have people who have an open approach to their business and the discharge of their duties. We have been lucky in the people the general public elect. If the public is uneasy or unhappy with elected representatives or thinks individuals are abusing their office, it can decide not to re-elect them. If it doubts any person's capacity or honesty, it will not be slow in despatching them from public office.

I understand some of the reasons why the enactment of this Bill is being sought. There has been much public concern over some things that happened over the years. There were conflicts over some semi-State bodies. We had the beef tribunal and different problems with Greencore plc. I presume it is because of those difficulties we have this Bill before the House.

I urge the Government to be cautious in setting up committees. We should be careful that we do not go overboard and set up too many. Disputes about planning have to be referred to An Bord Pleanála and I understand there will be a new committee to advise the Government on judicial appointments. We are setting up commissions in other areas and it is proposed to have new committees of this House. We have to be careful not to have too many layers of bureaucracy. In the long term, it is important that we have a certain amount of trust in people.

I support the Bill and presume it can be of benefit.

Mr. Quinn

I welcome the Minister to the house and congratulate her on grabbing a tortuous Bill and forcing it on the ardent journey to this House. It must be one of the most discussed Bills in many years; it is the Bill most discussed since I was elected to this House. Rather than approaching it in a general way, as did many Members in the other House, I prefer to make a few remarks on one perspective of it.

In scrutinising the Bill, I have mainly been concerned with whether it is likely to discourage anyone in business from seeking public office, such as membership of this House or the Dáil. There is a clear necessity for our Legislature to reflect a broad range of experience among its Members. In the past, the experience of successful people who run big businesses has been somewhat under-reflected in these Houses. This was one of the reasons why I ran for office, not to lobby for business interests but to throw my experience from a business perspective into the melting pot. Since successful business people have something to offer, I wish to see that they are not discouraged from taking the plunge and putting themselves forward for election. It was precisely from this angle that I looked at the Bill and I will concentrate on this angle on this occasion.

Is there anything in the Bill that would dissuade business people from running for office or from accepting office, if nominated to it, as has happened in this House in the past? I will give an example of the type of thing that would have that effect. A person in business has competitors; that is what business is all about. Arising from that, there is some information in every business that is commercially sensitive, about which one does not want one's competitors to know because it would put one at a disadvantage. In some businesses, the amount of turnover can be commercially sensitive as can the amount of profit, but in other businesses those figures are not sensitive and they are publicised quite freely. In either situation, the desirable thing is to have all competitors on a par — either everybody knows or nobody knows. As far as I can see, from examining the Bill and scrutinising its provisions, it does not require any person to divulge commercially sensitive information, so there does not appear to be a problem on that point.

Another requirement that could be a deterrent would be if a Member was required to disclose the amount of his or her income from private business interests. Rightly or wrongly, how much one earns is considered to be a purely private matter. Other societies are different; I gather that in Israel it is one of the first questions one asks a new acquaintance. That is not the way we do things in Ireland. It would probably put business people off public office if they had to put their earnings on the public record and subject them to scrutiny. The Bill does not require that: it specifically excludes declarations of income. I do not see a problem in that area either.

A third example of an information requirement that would be a deterrent would be if it were necessary to publish a person's home address. With the kidnapping and terrorism of more recent times, it would be a major concern to successful business people if they had to do that. I looked to see if that was in the Bill. For security reasons many business people do not want their home addresses publicised, which I think is quite reasonable. In a country as small as Ireland anybody who digs deep enough can easily find that sort of information but giving easy access to it is a different matter. The Bill does not require people to list their home addresses as private homes are specifically excluded from the list of registrable interests.

These three factors would act as a very significant deterrent to business people putting their names forward for membership of either House. If any of these factors were a requirement I would find it very difficult to support this Bill.

People will be required to disclose information which would normally be private for those engaged in private business. They will be required to disclose all sources of income and all significant assets held. I do not think that this will act as a deterrent because the information required is, as far as I can see, tightly restricted to what is necessary to highlight any conflict of interest. Business people who are tempted to seek public office will readily appreciate that the public has a right to know about any potential conflict of interest. It appears that the Minister of State has satisfied that potential problem.

People drawn to public office will probably recognise they are moving into a public arena rather than a private one and that certain matters will, therefore, become a matter of legitimate public interest. If it meant losing all privacy and supplying information just to satisfy the voyeuristic instincts of curious people, then those who have to submit to it could reasonably object. However, it is hard to see that anybody could reasonably object to giving information which is necessary to get people's interests into the open — interests which might have an impact on their role as a public representative. Anybody who would be deterred by having to give this information is probably not the kind of person whom the public would like to have representing them. It is a benign rather than a malignant deterrent.

The American example of business people in politics is quite intriguing. In the United States business people are heavily involved in politics and it seems unlikely they would succeed in politics there unless they had already made their fortune in a competitive market place. People do not tend to be elected as public representatives or senior administration officials unless they have already succeeded in business. There are far more rigorous disclosure requirements in America than we are considering here, which do not seem to deter successful American business people from participating in public office. One cannot read too much into that because the American and Irish cultures are very different, but we should aspire to that kind of openness. The Minister of State is helping us to move in that direction with this Bill.

I welcome and support the Bill. However, it had a long and ardous passage and, as a result, it will probably be a long time before the Minister, or anybody else, puts a similar Bill forward. I wonder if that is right. We are moving into new territory here and the Minister of State has grasped a nettle which others failed to do. It is perhaps too much to ask that the Minister of State will get it 100 per cent right on the first occasion. We are putting new mechanisms into place and we do not know if they will fulfil their purpose. I would like to see this issue revisited at regular intervals, perhaps every five years. In that way, we could make changes and adjust the monetary figures to allow for inflation——

Ms E. Fitzgerald

That is already in the Bill.

Mr. Quinn

I missed that part. We can add things which may prove necessary in the future and move steadily forward to the more open society towards which the Minister of State is pushing us and which so many people see as desirable. I am aware that amending legislation can be introduced at any stage but my point is that the tortuous passage of this Bill may deter the Minister of State, or any future Minister, from doing so. It would be better if we could build a regular review process into the Bill so that the Legislature would be forced to confront this issue on a regular basis. I am not sure what mechanism we could use to do that but I am interested in hearing the views of the Minister of State.

I compliment the Minister of State on tackling this tortuous legislation and steering it through both Houses. I wish her every success with it.

Ms O'Sullivan

I welcome the Minister of State. I am very pleased that the Ethics in Public Office Bill, 1994, has come to the Seanad and I hope that it will have an easy passage through this House. It was, as Senator Quinn said, extensively debated in the Dáil.

It is very important that there is public confidence in political leaders and the political process and this Bill is an important mechanism for ensuring that confidence. We have a great deal of power as politicians, particularly those who hold office as Ministers, and the same applies to senior civil servants, senior advisers, members of State boards and so on, who are covered by this Bill. It is important that the public knows that we exercise that power in a way which does not promote anybody's personal interest but is in the public interest.

This Bill serves a broad purpose in ensuring public accountability and transparency, which is a word we hear a great deal. It is important for people to know the rules by which power is exercised on their behalf. In a democracy office holders are elected by the public to look after their interests and to spend their taxes wisely. It is essential that there are clear rules and guidelines under which people operate in these high offices.

There is a perception that politicians are not in politics for the public good but for personal gain or some hidden agenda. Anybody who has served at local or national level knows that the vast majority are in politics purely to serve the public good and out of commitment to what they stand for. The perception is totally at variance with the reality. However, we must accept that there is a common perception that all is not quite as clear as it should be. This Bill is important because it sets out the rules and clarifies the interests of politicians.

When people say that politicians are in it for what they can get out of it, if they are asked about their local politician they will invariably say that he or she is a great person who works really hard in the interests of the local people. However, while people know that about their local politician, they often have a generalised perception about politicians which is totally unjustified. It is important to bridge the gap between the perception and the reality and this Bill will be helpful in that regard because it will set down the rules. It will make clear what a person's private interests are and if it is possible they might conflict with his or her public role. It achieves the right balance between personal privacy and the public interest. It is important that these rules are clear and that we know exactly what interests might conflict with a person's public role.

Office holders must indicate whether they hold directorships or have an involvement in companies. They do not have to declare the extent of that interest; therefore, they do not have to declare what people may consider to be unnecessary information, which might discourage business people from becoming politicians. They have to declare not the amount but the existence of the interest. If they make decisions in the exercise of their offices, it is clear to the public they are not doing so from a hidden agenda.

The rules are clear and this should be the case in any activity. As Senator Rory Kiely is heavily involved in sport, he will know that if there are clear rules in sport or anything else, it is much easier to play the game and get on with one's business. This applies to politics as much as to any other activity.

The structures set out in the Bill are clear. A committee will deal with ordinary Members of the Oireachtas and a commission will deal with others covered by the Bill. There are clear procedures to examine a person's interests if this is necessary. The public has a right to know the interests of those who are spending taxpayers' money and exercising the will of the people as elected representatives. The public will know that no personal agenda is being pursued. The practice of having a declaration of interests is standard in most democracies and we are simply coming into step with other countries which have similar democratic structures.

Information on spouses and children of people in high office is confidential and is not made known to the public. This is important because information on people who are not directly involved in public life should not be made public. It is good that the Bill provides that expensive gifts to officeholders should become State property. The issue of such gifts is raised from time to time and makes media headlines. This is now dealt with.

Most Members serve at local as well as national level. Prior to being elected, many of them may have been critical of politicians. I am referring in particular to local representatives who are leaders of movements agitating against politicians at local level. After being elected they begin to understand the difficulties and constraints under which public representatives operate. Local councillors devote their time to serving the public without remuneration, apart from receiving small sums in expenses. Those who are the loudest critics begin, after they themselves are elected, to understand the pressures on representatives.

In schools there is a need for more education on the political process. A few months ago we spoke about surveys which showed the limited information young people have about who are their public representatives, who are the holders of high office and the work of the Oireachtas. There is a big role for the education system in this area.

The media also have a role to play and are influential in how people perceive political office and how people perform in politics. It is right that the media highlight and defend the public interest if something is done in a way it should not. It is important that we have a free press which operates in a perceptive and critical manner and seeks to investigate what is happening in the public arena. It is also important that it highlights the good work done in the political arena. The legislative work done in the Oireachtas and in local councils should be given the kind of media attention given to rows, problems and difficulties. The public wants to read about rows but positive work should also be highlighted.

This Bill helps to make clear to the public that there are no ways in which a person who is elected to high office can seek to promote a personal agenda instead of the public good. It makes clear what a person's interests are when he or she holds high office. It is in our interests as well as in the interests of the public that there be clear guidelines and rules and these are well dealt with in the Bill which balances the public interest with people's rights to personal privacy. I welcome the Bill and hope it will have a swift passage through the House.

Mr. Farrell

I have no complaints about this Bill but I do not see a great deal new in it. For years members of Sligo County Council have had to declare their interests. When my party was in Government Members of the Opposition implied that Members on the Government side had not disclosed their interests. However, it transpired that many people on the Opposition side had not given an account of what they owned. We have always declared our interests.

Outlandish and scurrilous statements were made by people who are now members of the Government about people in Fianna Fáil. I would like to see a provision in the Bill to protect people from such statements. It is not good enough for people to have the freedom of the Oireachtas to say what they like; they should have the freedom to say what they know is true and they should not be free to say what is untrue. A statement was made about a document which was going to rock the Oireachtas and the Catholic Church to their foundations but this never happened. Ethics in this area are important and should be upheld but there is nothing in the Bill to do this.

For many years we have attacked people who make profits and who run businesses successfully and this is one of the causes of unemployment. There is an attitude that if people are successful this is because they are operating in an underhand way and are not entitled to any credit. Profit is a dirty word among some politicians and people in the community. The people who make profits pay taxes, not the people who have nothing.

We must be careful to achieve a balance if we want to attract good people to politics. The best people from whom to get advice are those who are successful in their own walks of life. Advice they give is good because they know what they are talking about. I am afraid we might discourage such people from entering politics. We have set up committees, consultancy agencies and task forces over the last few years to inquire into various issues. These cost the taxpayer a lot of money but eventually come up with nothing. Is this Bill necessary?

I think the Bill also asks an officeholder to account for interests held by his family. I read the Bill but did not see the reference; if it is there, it is not in layman's language. An officeholder should not be expected to give an account of his families' position. His offspring may be married or live far away. This is grossly unfair and if it is in the Bill, I ask the Minister to reconsider it as it would be impossible to implement.

We have a right to privacy but will that be the case if this legislation is carried to its logical conclusion? Will people be able to keep their home addresses private? Will they be told this information will only be released to a particular committee? One only has to look at what happened in An Bord Pleanála a few years ago. The officials involved there were supposed to be trustworthy and efficient. It is not big business people or politicians who commit these transgressions. As the old saying goes "every man has his price"— it might be more politically correct to say "everyone".

Although I do not have any problems with this Bill, will we do all that we intend to do with it? I and most people in this House have been declaring our interests for many years. I did this the second time I was elected to Sligo County Council and have been doing so ever since. I also did so when I was elected to this House in 1981. There is nothing new in this provision but a lot of hype has been generated about it.

Politicians have a bad name but it is our political colleagues who are giving us this reputation. It is time that ethics came to the fore in this House and that we spoke in a more suitable manner. No one could ever accuse me of making outlandish or slanderous statements but there is no point in blaming the press for doing so as we give them the ammunition. I would like to see provisions governing this matter in the Bill.

Mr. O'Kennedy

There may be marked reluctance on the part of Members of both Houses to offer any views on legislation of this kind because of the downside risk that if they make their views known and make public statements, they immediately leave themselves open to more severe scrutiny than those who say nothing. That is not a sufficient reason, much less justification, for not making a contribution on a Bill of this nature. I want to make some general observations, based particularly on my experience in public life, in and out of Government — I was initially a Member of this House over 30 years ago — and the climate in which we want to promote people who are properly motivated for public service to take it on. The vast majority of those I have known in politics over those 30 years have been properly motivated and adhered to these high standards.

I cannot imagine the Seanad of 30 years ago would have seen the need for a Bill of this nature. Perhaps the world has changed but the reason it would not have seen this need is that the fundamental code of ethics is already in the Constitution and we should pay more attention to it. This Bill focuses on a single and narrow — it may be important — aspect of ethics and does not draw attention to the important elements of political ethics and conduct in political office which are already laid down in the Constitution.

Will the Minister publicly disclose the code, procedures and conduct required from Ministers in Government so that Ministers or potential aspirants for office, particularly Executive office in Government, are aware of them? There is no reason that should be a dark secret from the public, much less than from the Members of the Oireachtas. It exists and should be laid before the House and the public could then measure the extent to which these requirements are adhered to.

I also have a reservation about the heading of the Minister's statement, "demonstrating that the public interest comes first". Maybe that is the intention. However, if there is an implication there that this has not been demonstrated by people of honesty and integrity over the years and that we had to wait for this Government to demonstrate that the public interest comes first, I reject and repudiate it. I hope the Minister can make it clear she accepts that many people have consistently demonstrated by their actions that the public interest not only came first but was the only interest they served, many times to the detriment of their private personal interests and that of their families. I had the privilege to serve in Government and with people in both Houses of the Oireachtas, which contained some of the finest people I have ever met and whose standards were the highest I could ever hope to respect. They demonstrated by their actions, not just their words, that the public interest came first.

The old Fianna was not far wrong when it said the motto for clean, honest living was "Neart in ár lámha, glainne in ár gcroíthe agus beart de réir ár mbriathar", which means strength in our arms, cleanliness in our hearts, and our actions are as good as our words. If we proclaim standards in words, we need to ensure there will be no implication that those who did not make that proclamation in words were not regarded as not having them.

When I was first elected to the Seanad, my salary was around £500 per annum. In the space of two years, it increased to £750 per annum. The Dáil salary at the time was around £1,000 per annum and in the space of a few years, increased to £1,250. Why? Seán Lemass saw this as being the other extreme. The founding fathers saw public service as a privilege and an honour, which is why in our Constitution, the term "an allowance" is used, and not "a salary", for Members of the Oireachtas. In time, we came to recognise that allowance discouraged people from entering public service. As Senator Quinn said, if that is the price to be paid they will not go into politics for financial return. We have other responsibilities.

We should reflect on how we can make the political system better, cleaner and purer. We should acknowledge the standards of those in public service who did not think of financial reward. It would not have occurred to many people with whom I served in Government to proclaim that the public interest came first, although their actions each day consistently confirmed that it did. We should, in the interest of the public who are cynical of politicians, vindicate the name, honour and integrity of the vast majority of those in public service. As someone who came into this House 30 years ago, I reject any implication in this debate that we are only now beginning to be pure.

The concept of ethics does not only relate to financial considerations; it is broader whether in or out of public office. It relates to our code of conduct, actions and abilities. We would do well to reconsider ethics clearly laid down in the Constitution and which do not have any financial implications. I had great respect for the rugged integrity of the founding fathers of this State who created the independence we are privileged to enjoy. We should consider ethics at the highest level, collective Cabinet responsibility and confidentiality, without which effective Government cannot operate. I would be happy to see this legislation focus on that responsibility.

In recent years Cabinet members have leaked Government decisions to the press to build up a positive image, thereby increasing their promotion prospects. This would have been anathema to the post-independence generation. The Government should examine this trend.

I have known people in Government who would not breathe a word of what was said at the Cabinet table to anyone and who were criticised by the press for not having the capacity to give such information. They did not try to curry favour with the media by giving them inside stories. We should contrast these people, who were the most honourable men I have been privileged to sit with, with others who could not get off the blocks fast enough to tell their stories. As soon as they left a Cabinet meeting they would talk to someone from the press who knew them and, perhaps, promoted them.

When the press talks about ethics in Government, can it justify its actions as regards channelling inside information from meetings which are meant to be confidential? We all have a responsibility, the fourth estate as well, to maintain standards. I support openness, transparency and accountability, but it should be achieved through established and agreed channels. This trend did not start with the present Government. However, when one makes a virtue of openness, transparency and accountability, one must at least say what is meant by that or is it a case that Ministers give the information which suits them? From my experience, if the press waited for some Ministers to give information, it would be starved because they would not advance their personal interest in Government by feeding stories to the press. However, that is the other extreme. Information should be made available.

It is time to consider the implication that we must watch people in public life in terms of their financial interests as distinct from their constitutional responsibilities. I would be happy if a review was carried out with regard to feeding information to the press, a trend which did not exist many years ago when an example which one could admire was set by people's words and actions.

As Senator Farrell said, if, in the course of a debate in this House, a damaging allegation is made under the protection of privilege, it should be vindicated in whatever tribunal this House sets up. We should adhere to that fundamental ethic. I referred to some examples of inconsistency. As Senator Farrell said, if a Member stands up in the House and says that he has information which will rock the State to its foundations, he has, whether in or out of Government, a responsibility under our Constitution to provide such information. To do less undermines the basic code of ethics in our Constitution and the standards we should follow. The Minister and the Government should address this issue because under the protection of privilege it is too easy to make allegations which increase the public's cynical view of politicians. We do not want to pursue such a standard of ethics. Perhaps we should consider its impact in this regard.

There are other matters in terms of ethics in public life. The Leader of the Labour Party and current Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, deliberately demanded in the Dáil that the beef tribunal should have power to send for persons and papers so that all the necessary information would be disclosed fully to the tribunal. We accepted that amendment lest there be an implication in not accepting it that there was something which we were trying to hide. I recall it well. To his credit, the current Taoiseach made no such demand and he went before the tribunal, claimed no privilege, disclosed whatever he had to disclose and subjected himself to cross-examination. I must note the inconsistency of the Tánaiste, who specifically asked for that disclosure and, when it came to the tribunal, claimed privilege. He was not unique; other Members, some of whom are still in Government, also claimed privilege. Is that consistent? Is that ethics in public life? I only ask the question in terms of the ethical standards we want to promote. The guidelines are there. If we are to use privilege to raise fears and apprehensions, we should also be conscious that privilege is not to be treated with any degree of disrespect.

I am concerned about cynicism regarding people in public office and I agree with what Senator Quinn said. I hope I will not be misunderstood. Many people would have been better off financially if they had never come into public life. If I were engaged elsewhere today with my colleagues at the Bar, I might find myself a lot better off financially. It is a great privilege to serve in public life and it always has been so and that is why I question the implication in the Bill on the financial issue. Most people I have known in public life would have been much better off financially if they had stayed in their own professions and businesses. Perhaps it is for that reason that I support and sympathise with the statements made by Senator Quinn.

I am also concerned about the public interest in semi-State companies and any further privatisation which the Government may be considering. If there is something like the sugar quota in what was formerly Súicre Éireann and it is held by a State company on behalf of the public good, that is perfect. It is a monopoly. When a company is privatised — as Súicre Éireann was when it became Greencore PLC — the public asset is then held privately. I was the Minister who started these procedures but the conclusion of them left me in some considerable doubt. There are people in Greencore PLC, which is a privately managed company, in control of a public asset. Senator Quinn would feel he could manage well if he had a national asset as part of his private domain. Before we move any step further towards privatisation, the Minister would do well to talk to her colleagues about the consequences of transferring into private ownership and management assets which have hitherto been held in the national interest. Some people, simply by virtue of privatisation, have become much better off overnight, both in terms of salary and assets. The fact that they operate a monopoly in the private sector gives them a privileged position.

Dr. Henry

I welcome the Minister to the House. She has put a great deal of time and energy into this Bill.

The Bill will compile a register of interests but will it make people any more ethical than they are? If people desire to behave in an unethical manner, it is all too easy for them to do so. The Bill may do a lot of good from the point of view of the public perception. It is sad that there is such a cynical view of politicians, in particular. I do not think this is the case in relation to the Judiciary or members of the Civil Service. If making the register of interests available to the public is a help, so be it.

The Bill has been well thought out in general. I sometimes wonder how much of a person's interest needs to be made public and if some of what is to be made public would not have been sufficiently covered were it made known to the commission. I will return to that later.

People are entitled to a certain amount of privacy, particularly in view of the fact that the files are to be kept for 15 years after the person may have left public office. The section on the commission seems to be particularly good and fair. I commend the Minister on it because it is set out clearly.

I am anxious about one area in Part IV of the Bill, section 34. I refer to the situation regarding the declaration of legal or medical services, including psychiatric and psychological services. It is not clear if this is to be held privately or if it is to be a public register. Looking at the calibre of people on the commission, I would have thought it was sufficient to have the declaration held privately. I know there does not seem to be a clear way to identify who the person saw in connection with whatever medical treatment they had or if it was a member of the family who was treated, but this is a small country and seeking that sort of information regarding people's private medical history is going too far.

In other countries we have seen the dreadful consequence of the medical history of people in public life becoming well known. Not too long ago, a candidate for the vice-presidency of the United States of America had to withdraw when he lost the support of the presidential candidate because it was discovered that he had availed of psychiatric services. Sadly, this is a situation where there is still a considerable stigma and that is also the case in relation to psychological services.

What alarms me about this section of the Bill is that psychiatric and psychological services are extremely expensive. Psychological services are not covered to any great degree under the Health Act. If the Minister looks at the new regulations being brought forward by the Minister for Health regarding private insurance companies and the coverage of psychiatric illness, she will see that these services have been reduced to a minimal level. Of course, there can be maximum levels but the Minister may find people have only a minimum amount of coverage for psychiatric care, in particular, because it is an expensive condition to treat. The Minister may find that they refuse to have treatment in the first place, which would be serious, or cut short whatever treatment they may be having.

If this were a case of some member of the general public, it is quite possible that a doctor or institution might feel it would be wiser ethically to go on with treatment if they knew the circumstances were financially serious. They might tell the patient to forget about the rest of the bill. Apparently, there have been cases where people have been patients in expensive private institutions and were not charged but I wonder how many such cases there have been. A large number of people's medical privacy is involved, not only Members of the Oireachtas, the Judiciary, the Civil Service and advisers but also members of their families, who could quite easily be identified — especially if the family is a small one. I ask the Minister to look at this area again.

Perhaps I have misunderstood the Bill and that this area is totally private and confined to the commission. Knowing the calibre of the people on the commission, I could understand that that might be so. If the person who received such treatment was behaving in such a manner that a member of the commission felt obliged to tell him that his behaviour in regard to legislation had been noted and to suggest that he should either alter his attitude or make known that he had received free medical treatment, I would feel happier. However, this is a grave intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship and medical privacy.

I spoke recently on the need to be extraordinarily careful not to stigmatise people medically. I asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform to ensure in his legislation on equality in employment that a healthy person with an abnormal gene who may never develop a disease cannot be discriminated against in employment or other sectors. This is close to that situation; people are being asked to give information which may rarely be relevant. I would be happy if the Minister will assure me this is being held privately by the commission but I would be worried if it was in public.

The institution or doctor involved does not have to be named. It would be terrible if they could be because in some cases it would be all too clear why the person had been in the institution. If that were intended I would strongly oppose this section but I am glad the Minister has indicated by shaking her head that it is not. Even so, if this information is public, I am not happy. It is enough for the commission to know and we can rely on those people to keep us informed if the person is straying outside the bounds.

Liabilities are not mentioned in the Bill. I will not start passing around the hat but one would be more likely to have a financial problem rather than a great deal of money stashed away; and one would be far more likely to be swayed in legislation on the banks if they could be induced to behave more kindly to those of us with major liabilities to them. It is strange that this is not mentioned. The commission could be informed as a private matter that a Member or his or her company may owe money and this could be taken into consideration when looking at legislation.

It is interesting that much of the information dealt with by the Bill can be obtained in the companies' register in Dublin Castle. The former Senator Brendan Ryan discussed this in his book Keeping Us in the Dark, in which he outlined a useful paper trail through which one can find out about people if one wishes. The Bill will collate the information but I am not sure it will be as effective as the Minister hopes, although I would be delighted if it was.

I do not know why anyone thinks one can make money by going into politics. I have met few people who have enriched themselves through it; in most cases it costs them a great deal of time and money. I keep the day job going for fear of something worse happening in the future.

Any gifts will be taken into the custody of the State or sold. I admit this is not likely but if I was given a silver salver with my name inscribed, for adjudicating at a greyhound meeting for Senator Kiely, not many people would be keen on buying it. Besides, what use would it be to the State?

Ms E. Fitzgerald

It might be worth £500.

Dr. Henry

That is what I wanted to know, whether the person who had been presented with it could purchase it. We should take into account that not many people would be interested in having a huge glass bowl with "Senator Mary Henry presented the greyhound racing trophy" emblazoned on it. The State should not demand £500 because other people might not pay £10 for it. Perhaps some people would be anxious to have a Senator Henry bowl on their sideboard but I have not yet met them. I hope the monetary value will not be the only thing taken into account, because otherwise Government Buildings will be stuffed full of huge glass bowls with various names on them. The Minister should fix a token payment for inscribed gifts for the sake of the State.

I am glad that the section on holidays provides that holidays within the State are exempt. I am open to offers and I am particularly fond of the west, Donegal, Kerry and west Cork.

Ms E. Fitzgerald

The Senator can join me there.

Dr. Henry

I was anxious about this because every bank holiday weekend I go to Letterfrack to visit people with a major clothing business who constantly complain about PRSI. I have never been able to do anything for them but I assure them I will. The thought of not being able to stand in the rain in Letterfrack on August bank holidays to come was beginning to get me down, so I am delighted the Minister has exempted such holidays.

I hope companies abroad will note that Members can be taken on tours around this country. The Minister is to be complimented on supporting home holidays, which I presume was her intent. I would also be pleased to visit historic houses. I hope those who wish to gain influence with us will look carefully at the Bill to see what they can do for us. I congratulate the Minister on the Bill, because it must have taken a lot of work.

Mr. Mooney

I am glad Senator Henry injected some humour into this debate because when the Bill first emerged into the public arena it was greeted with howls of protest and incredulity. Like many people, I have difficulty with the title. Why was it called the Ethics in Public Office Bill? It mainly deals with the declaration of interests of one sort or another. The Minister stated these interests are similar to those listed in other parliaments and my understanding is the titles of those Bills relate to declarations of Members' interests. I am open to correction but I am not aware of legislation in EU or other democratic countries with the title "Ethics in Public Office Act".

I raise this matter because the Labour party was in Government with Fianna Fáil when this Bill was in gestation and much as I regret saying it there was an element of point scoring in putting the legislation together. Eaten bread is quickly forgotten and we must recall the atmosphere surrounding politics and politicians from 1992 to 1994, during the beef tribunal period, when politicians were at each other's throats. The newspapers pounced on each infraction, alleged and real, and sent out teams of enthusiastic young reporters, fresh from the college of journalism in Rathmines, wishing to establish a name and reputation for themselves. They had to get the story, which usually involved getting the politician — more accurately, the Fianna Fáil politician.

In that atmosphere this legislation was introduced. It was initiated by the Labour partners as part of the Programme for Government and, unfortunately, that was done not so much to make Fianna Fáil feel defensive and inferior but to promote the perception that Labour members were models of integrity bordering on sainthood.

Ms O'Sullivan

Never sainthood, that is going too far.

Mr. Mooney

Unfortunately, Senator, perception is everything in politics although I wish it were otherwise. One has only to think back to the environment in which the Cork by-elections were held and during which both our parties shared office. I am sure my former colleagues in Government agree that the issues debated during those by-elections had little to do with real politics but with perceptions about Government Ministers flying around the world or allegedly abusing their office. I am firmly convinced that the results of those elections, which were a bitter disappointment to the Government parties of the time — more so for Labour than for Fianna Fáil — were based on a perception that politicians were not to be trusted, that their activities were questionable, and that if they were given all the privileges of power they would abuse them. The perception was fuelled by people who had very short term advantages in mind, but it backfired because the public in Cork and Wicklow wished a plague on all our houses because they felt we are all the same. They did not vote for parties but for individuals who are not entrapped by this system and who, like knights of old in shining armour, will cut a swathe through the corrupt power elite in this country.

It is important to remember the context in which this legislation was introduced. In her speech, the Minister said: "we can be proud of the values of public service which have characterised our administrative and political systems". Of course we can be proud. Since the foundation of the State, those who have served in successive Administrations have done so for the highest ideals.

The Minister also spoke of "a Bill that creates the framework where the public can have confidence that those who work in the public's name are working in the public interest". The Minister is emphatic that this Bill is about "demonstrating that the public interest comes first". We have all been living long enough on this planet to know that when you set yourself up as a plaster saint you can be knocked down very quickly. I am disappointed by the manner in which this Bill was introduced as well as the decision to call it the Ethics in Public Office Bill because that demeans all of us by implying that this system is corrupt and needs to be reformed. The Bill is saying: "Are we not wonderful people because we are reforming ourselves?"

Looking at the evidence since the foundation of the State, one will find few examples of corruption, or even the whiff of it, among elected politicians, or any evidence or suggestion that they abused their positions.

It is salutary to refer to our European partners who came out of the great European liberal tradition about which we are often lectured, not only in this House but in general through the media. In France the Prime Minister may have to resign, and a couple of Ministers from the last administration were forced to resign amid allegations of corruption, while in Belgium the prime minister is also under pressure. In Italy the tangentopoli“clean hands” investigation brought an entire political system crashing down around their ears. It is ironic that the former Italian foreign minister — who was lionised by the European media, and to a certain degree by our own media — is facing ten years in jail for siphoning off money from public contracts.

In Spain, corruption allegations and sleaze charges have overshadowed the achievements of Prime Minister Gonzalez's government in the last couple of years. The corruption allegations involved Senor Gonzalez's brother-in-law and the sleaze charges involved the former governor of the Bank of Spain who spent two weeks in prison. Two other heroes of the Gonzalez years of economic bounty in the late 1980s include a former chairman of Benesto as well as the architect of a multi-million dollar investment in Spain by the Kuwaiti investment office, both of whom are in prison facing fraud charges.

Last May, the former head of the 70,000-strong Guardia Civil— the paramilitary force which forms the backbone of Spain's domestic security services — became a fugitive from justice after being accused of illegally enriching himself.

Those are our European partners, but I will now come a little closer to home, to the mother of parliaments, that bastion of democracy, the institution which has taught the rest of the democratic world how to go about its business, the British Parliament. Mr. Tim Yeo, a junior Minister, resigned after fathering an illegitimate child with a Tory councillor in east London. It later emerged that this was Mr. Yeo's second illegitimate child. Another Tory MP admitted sharing a double bed with a gentleman doctor friend while on holiday, claiming he did it to save money during their "gastronomic tour of France".

Last year Edwina Currie, a former Minister who is now a prominent backbencher, added to a long list of soft porn on our bookshelves by writing about her experiences in Westminster in a book which, to date, has sold over 50,000 copies. Many of the extracts quoted in this article would have us blushing in private let alone in the institutions of State.

In the same month we learned of the Pergau scandal which involved the British Government spending millions of pounds in foreign aid on an unnecessary dam in Malaysia as a bribe to make the Malaysian Government buy British weapons. This was condoned by the British Government. At the time, William Waldegrave was, among other things, the Minister for open government.

We have not yet created a Department or Minister for open government here so, in the absence of that formal title, the Minister of State, Deputy Fitzgerald, will have to do for the purposes of this debate. However, Mr, Waldegrave declared that under certain circumstances it was all right for a Minister to lie to the House of Commons.

It was also revealed that the head of the joint chiefs of staff, the top military man in Britain, had had an affair with the wife of another MP, and he too had to resign.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Finneran)

Is the Senator quoting from some document?

Mr. Mooney

I am not quoting directly from the document.

Acting Chairman

Some of the people you mentioned do not have any redress in this House.

Mr. Mooney

These cases are all documented and in the public domain.

Acting Chairman

That is why I asked you if you were quoting from a document.

Mr. Mooney

I will quote the article called "Westminster Watch" by Simon Hoggart in the Sunday Tribune. I can give the date of issue later because I do not have it now.

Acting Chairman

Thank you, Senator.

Mr. Mooney

I take the point you are making, Sir, but the reason I did not accord with precedent is that I was not directly quoting, and all these matters are in the public domain.

According to Mr. Hoggart, the British Minister for the Disabled, Nicholas Scott, used underhand tactics to kill off a Bill which would have helped the disabled. Then he fibbed to the Commons about his involvement. In July last year it was revealed that two Tory MPs had agreed to accept £1,000 each to table a parliamentary question. They were exposed by a journalist posing as a businessman. Mr. Hoggart says that other MPs were quick to condemn the outrageous behaviour, not of the two Tory MPs but of the newspaper that ran the story. Two Ministers resigned when The Guardian newspaper in Britain revealed that they had accepted hospitality from the owner of Harrods in the Ritz Hotel in Paris. Other Tory MPs were quick to condemn the outrageous behaviour, not of the Ministers concerned but of the newspaper that revealed the story.

I have not quoted those at length to make us look morally superior to our European partners. The Minister may be surprised to learn that I agree with most of the provisions in the Bill but I wish to point out that with the best will in the world and the best of intentions, one cannot impose the morality or ethics in public office that this Bill sets out to impose. I concede that the Bill creates a framework. I may be arguing against myself in referring to the sleaze factor in European politics. There is a need for some legislative framework which people can use as a benchmark. They can then see that the system does not work on a nod and wink; laws exist which can be implemented if one transgresses.

I want to take up Senator Henry's point about the gifts, not that I have received any gifts.

Dr. Henry

Neither have I.

Mr. Mooney

I am the third member of my family to be involved in politics at local and national level and I am aware of the environment in which Ministers operate. Gifts are a normal part of overseas travel. It is part of the culture in the Middle East to exchange gifts.

I was curious about the £500 limit. The point is well made by Senator Henry that in a number of cases the recipient would be named on the gift along with the circumstances and context in which they received it. This devalues the gift in commercial terms. I have dabbled in stamp collecting all my life. There is greater commercial value attached to a first day cover — where the stamp is cancelled by the post office on the day on which it is issued — if it is not addressed and did not physically go through the mail. Where it is not possible to go to the post office to get the cancellation mark, labels are used and these can be removed when the card or letter arrives.

The approach to the collection of items is to remove any reference to the individual because that enhances their value. The name and address of a person devalues it substantially. Why was it decided that the limit would be £500? Is it based on past experience, representing the average value of donations to Irish Ministers over the last 60 or 70 years? I am curious and believe it was not fully thought out, but I accept the Minister's reasons for including it. There had to be some value placed on the gifts.

Section 19 relates to special advisers, who have been in the news recently. As we were pilloried for special advisers, I confess I am indulging in tit for tat politics. Some £200,000 seems an enormous amount of taxpayers' money to advise the Taoiseach of the day. I am interested in subsection (4) (c) which provides that an office holder shall, in respect of a person who acts or acted as a special adviser to him or her, lay specified documents before each House of the Oireachtas. Paragraph (c) requires a statement as to whether the person is a relative of the office holder. While on the face of it that is a very noble aspiration, what is the point? Does it infer that one cannot appoint a relative or that a relative cannot act in an independent manner? Does it suggest that a relative is somehow a lesser person? At what level does it apply?

There was a contretemps concerning a Government Minister in the Fianna Fáil-Labour Administration, also a member of the current Government, who employed her daughter as her constituency secretary. I thought that was an admirable decision which I would defend. Why should somebody be denied because they are a relative? Are we going to create a situation where, because somebody is a relative, one ignores other merits, attributes, abilities and a high level of education? Is this just a matter of transparency so we will know a person is a relative, but are defending the person's right to employ them?

Does the Bill cover appointments to State boards? I am not against the practice. I do not wish my remarks to be misinterpreted because I am sure the person concerned is admirable but I was surprised to read that a civil servant who has been promoted to Assistant Secretary — it was a woman so I am delighted — is also a member of two State boards. Is this normal practice throughout the Civil Service? I know civil servants are involved in boards which relate specifically to their Department but in this instance it did not strike me that the two boards in question were so related. Are they paid an emolument or expenses in the same way as other members of State and semi-State boards? Are they getting extra money over and above their Civil Service salary?

Ms E. Fitzgerald

No.

Mr. Mooney

They do not get any extra money. I am sorry for the individuals concerned if that is the case.

Mr. Manning

They should.

Mr. Mooney

I was not objecting; I was just curious. The Minister might suggest that they should get extra money.

Mr. Manning

It is discrimination.

Mr. Mooney

I agree. Why should they not get money for it? I was curious about the transparency aspect. I have no major difficulties with the Bill and I wish the Minister well in its passage through the House.

Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise and Employment (Ms E. Fitzgerald)

I thank Senators for an excellent and thoughtful debate. The key questions raised were why we need this Bill and why it is important. To some extent Senator Mooney answered that question when he detailed a series of problems that have occurred in other democracies.

It is important for our democracy that we are able to show that those in public life, senior public servants and senior officers on State boards are about the public's business and not about their own private business. It is also important that we are able to maintain public trust, not only in our democracy but also in our public service and in all those who serve the public interest. A formal system of registration of interests and formal mechanisms for dealing with conflicts of interest are important protections so that this democracy does not go the way of others.

We have been very well served by our public representatives and I agree with all that has been said about the huge amount of hard work that is done. In no sense is this Bill an anti-politics measure, it is an important defence for people in public life and for people entrusted with public office at a senior level. The public can be assured that there are mechanisms in place to address potential conflicts of interest and that those elected to public office and people in senior positions in the public service and semi-State bodies acting on the public's behalf, are doing that. Giving that reassurance to the public is an important strengthening of the institutions of Government, it is not in any sense an attack on those institutions, nor is it an attack on the democratic process.

In enacting this Bill we will be able to dispel some of the cynicism and muttering that sometimes goes on about whether we are really about the public's business; to show we are transparent in our dealings is an important reassurance to the public. It is extremely important that we are able to offer that assurance because cynicism about politics and public life can undermine the process of democracy itself. The public choose the Government and can remove our right to hold representative office. This Bill is about strengthening the foundations of our democracy. It is important that we are able to say with our hands on our hearts that reasonable mechanisms are in place, that we are avoiding conflicts of interest and are open about potential conflicts of interest. We can say that none of us is working to hidden agendas. The public are entitled to that important reassurance.

The contributions to the debate have been extremely thoughtful on all sides. Senator Kiely asked about a Member who might, through oversight, neglect to declare a minor interest and mentioned the potential for public embarrassment. We have set thresholds for disclosure in the Bill. The whole purpose both in the gifts provisions and the general declarations provision, is to set a £500 declaration limit for Members in the Bill. They are set at a level to recognise that de minimis non curat lex. People do not have to put every £100 they receive on the public record if they do not choose to do so but there is a voluntary mechanism if they do.

We provide mechanisms to look at interests of a reasonable scale where potential conflicts could arise. If somebody has an interest above this threshold level it must be declared. Any inquiry, whether conducted by the Houses of the Oireachtas in relation to a Member or the commission in relation to office holders or public servants must say in its findings under the Bill whether the contravention of the Bill was negligent, inadvertent or deliberate so that somebody who does not declare an interest simply through oversight is protected. By Statute that will be part of the finding so there is that protection for people who because of an oversight, do not declare something. The discipline of filling out a register will help people but we have reasonable provisions to address that.

Senator Enright asked whether we have too many committees. I know the Bill is quite complex in its different parts as applying to different categories of people, but we have tried to make the procedures as simple and relevant as possible at each level. For example, public and civil servants make their declarations to a relevant authority, who will be the Secretary of the Department in the case of ordinary civil servants. The commission will have a right to see those declarations so that if in any case there was a golden circle an outside body can break it. We will not clog up the commission with declarations from everybody; people will declare to their relevant authority. The same will apply in relation to semi-State companies and in this case the relevant authority will be the overseeing Department which ought to know if there are potential conflicts of interest in regard to the board members it appoints.

Senator Quinn made a very interesting and thoughtful contribution in relation to the whole area of business people in public life. Senator O'Kennedy and Senator Farrell also strongly emphasised the importance of having people with business experience in public life. I value the qualities and insight that Senator Quinn, as one of our leading business people, brings to debates, whether about consumer affairs or An Bord Bia. The Senator asked whether we would have a review mechanism. Such a mechanism for the thresholds is built into the Bill. The Minister for Finance, as the designated Minister under the Bill, can raise any of the thresholds in the Bill in relation to the consumer price index.

I agree with the point the Senator makes about review. Legislation like this is innovative and we have drawn from models overseas but we have nothing quite like it to draw from at home so it is important to keep the operation of the Bill under review. If new circumstances or new kinds of interests emerge, if difficulties arise in the operation, my office will monitor the situation. If there is any need for further legislation to fine tune this Bill and make sure it is achieving its objectives I will be very happy to put such legislation in place.

Senator Farrell raised the question of family interests. If anybody who is required to declare interests of their family does not know about those interests or could not reasonably be expected to know about them, or if the family's interests are not relevant to their public duties, they are under no obligation to declare them or to seek them out. However, the purpose of including family interests is to ensure that there is no inside track for close family or business partners of people who are charged with making decisions on the public's behalf. That is a reasonable precaution and reflects what is already in the guidelines which operate at the moment for senior executives and board members of semi-State bodies.

Senator O'Kennedy asked that we would publish the Government procedure instructions which are the guidelines for things like submission of memoranda to Government and for the conduct of Ministers in relation to their public duties. There is a commitment in the Government programme to publish those instructions. We have to do a little more polishing and fine tuning of the instructions to dovetail with the procedures of this Bill when it is passed and as soon as that has been done we will publish the Government procedure instructions. I accept the point he has made. Senator O'Kennedy asked whether we need the Bill and whether, when we talk about demonstrating that the public interest comes first, it is intended as a slur. It is not intended as a slur on people in public life as I fully accept that they put the public interest first but it is important for public trust in our political system that no suspicion of hidden conflict of interest should arise.

Senator Henry raised a number of points. She is welcome to join me on holidays in west Cork. With regard to medical, psychological and legal services, late in the course of guiding this Bill through the Dáil it was discovered that, under its provisions, people might potentially be required to disclose details of gifts they received of such services. A provision has been inserted which states that no identifying details of such gifts need be disclosed. People need not disclose that they attended Dr. Henry about a problem with varicose veins or that they attended a psychiatrist. The purpose of the section is to ensure that no identifying material need be supplied.

Dr. Henry

It will be in the public domain.

Ms E. Fitzgerald

It will not cause any difficulty if a Member discloses that they received a gift of services under the relevant section of the Second Schedule.

The question of liabilities was considered in the course of the Bill's preparation but it was not included in the list for various reasons. Very few jurisdictions list liabilities. Anyone who has liabilities of a compromising nature — as distinct from ordinary liabilities, such as mortgages or overdrafts — can make a voluntary statement under section 30 of the Bill.

Senator Henry also raised the issue of the value of gifts which may be inscribed. The provision of £500 mirrors that for the declaration of gifts by Members. It is not intended to be a guideline that we should receive a gift worth £499 from an Arab potentate each time we travel to the Middle East. The Government Secretariat thought it fit to provide a cut-off figure to distinguish between gifts of serious and minor value. The gift I most often receive is a bunch of flowers and that gives me great pleasure. Most gifts received in the course of ministerial duties are relatively small. It should not be signalled that anybody expects gifts of greater value. Inquiries are made through diplomatic channels regarding the value of foreign gifts.

Senator Mooney inquired about the valuation of inscribed gifts. The Bill provides that ministerial gifts will be valued by the Secretary to the Government who will take the commercial value into account. If I received a piece of inscribed Waterford glass at a FÁS function, the value would be significantly less than a piece that was not inscribed. We are talking about a common sense regime in this regard. A Select Committee on Members' interests will deal with any worries Members may have in relation to particular gifts and provide guidelines for gifts it considers declarable. I do not believe that inscribed pieces of Waterford Glass or silver spoons will be declarable under the Bill.

Senator Mooney also raised the question of disclosure in relation to advisers. It is important to have openness with regard to personal appointments made by Ministers which are not made through normal Civil Service recruitment procedures. This is a novel feature in the Bill. It is normal practice for a Minister, on taking office, to appoint their Dáil secretary to the post of ministerial secretary on the departmental payroll. Such appointments are covered by this mechanism. The Bill provides that advisers, responsible for providing senior policy advice, make a public declaration of their interests and be subject to the same regime as senior civil servants. It is also proposed that they place details of their qualifications on the record. Therefore, the public can be assured that people employed from public funds can provide the high quality advice for which they are paid. It would also be in the interests of transparency to declare if such appointees are related to the relevant Minister. This has been a matter of controversy and should be addressed in an open manner.

The legislation also applies to State companies where people are often entrusted with large amounts of public money. The guidelines drawn up by the previous Government, in the wake of some disturbing events in State companies, are being put on a statutory footing. That is the basis for the provisions in Part IV of the Bill.

I thank Senators for their contributions. I look forward to the Committee Stage debate where some of the points raised today can be teased out in more detail. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Friday, 14 July 1995.

An Cathaoirleach

When is it proposed to sit again?

Mr. Manning

Tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.