Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 Nov 1995

Vol. 145 No. 5

Ethics in Public Office Act, 1995: Motion.

Mr. Manning

I move:

That, pursuant to section 1 (2) (b) of the Ethics in Public Office Act, 1995 (No. 22 of 1995), it be hereby declared that—

(a) Part II of that Act in so far as it relates to—

(i) Seanad Éireann and its Members,

(ii) the Clerk of Seanad Éireann,

(iii) committees of Seanad Éireann and their members and clerks,

(iv) joint committees of Seanad and Dáil Éireann and their members and clerks,

(b) Part III of that Act in so far as it relates to the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Seanad Éireann, and

(c) Parts V and VI of that Act in so far as they relate to Members of Seanad Éireann,

shall come into operation on the 1st day of January, 1996.

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

There is much cynicism about people in public life. There is a belief that we are only out for what we can get from politics. People in politics, despite the long hours we work, our strong commitment to the people we represent and the strong sense of public service which is always demonstrated in this House, are all tarred with the same brush — that we belong to a discredited profession.

That is why the Ethics in Public Office Act is important for us as elected representatives and why it is important in strengthening trust in our democracy. It is important for confidence in our public service and in the wider public sector. It sets out to put the facts and not the myths on the record. It establishes the principle of openness in addressing any potential conflicts of interest. It sets out a framework where the conduct of public business and the private interests of people in public positions are seen to be kept separate.

Ministers and TDs, civil servants and people running State companies are in positions of public trust. The Act provides a framework for identifying and dealing with potential conflicts of interest in those roles. It enables people in public life to demonstrate that the values of public service prevail. It enables people in positions of public influence to show that they keep their public duties and private interests separate. Its mechanisms are a safeguard to show that those who work in the public's name are working on behalf of the public interest.

The rules of disclosure contained in the Act echo those in other Parliaments among our European neighbours, and in the European Parliament itself. They are a basic feature of democracies in the modern world.

The Act provides for the annual registration of interests by people in key public positions — Members of the Oireachtas 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 procedures for handling conflicts of interest which arise on the job. 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 Act and investigate complaints.

The Act has been debated at length, in the House and in Committee, with spirited contributions from all sides. A very constructive debate on the Act took place in this House. Our purpose today is not to revisit those debates. The Act is now law. Today we are making arrangements to commence those sections of the Act which apply to Members of this House. This is in line with the constitutional principle — in Article 15.10 of the Constitution — that each House regulates its own affairs.

The Government has already made the Commencement Order to bring the other sections of the Act, other than the provisions for Deputies and Senators, into operation from 1 November. The Dáil has already passed its Commencement Order for the Act. The Minister for Finance — the designated Minister under the Act — is proceeding with the necessary orders to apply the Act in respect of the public service. The Act is somewhat technical. Therefore I will set out, in simple terms, the provisions of the Act in respect of which we are making the Commencement Order today.

A Select Committee of this House, chaired by the Cathaoirleach, must be set up under the Act with the statutory task to prepare guidelines, on compliance with the Act, for Senators and offer advice on individual queries from Members. A similar Select Committee of the Dáil will have the same functions for that House. This follows the constitutional provision that each House regulates its own affairs. Those guidelines will be drawn up following consultation with the independent commission, which oversees the Act for Ministers and senior public servants, and with the Dáil Select Committee, to ensure maximum consistency. To help with that consistency, the commission will include the Clerk of the Seanad as a member. It will be an important protection under the Act for Senators to show that they were acting on the advice of, or following the guidelines laid down by, the committee in the event of a complaint being made. A further role for the committee is to investigate complaints and report to the House. The committee will have comprehensive powers to summon witnesses.

Preparatory work on setting up the committee and preparing the guidelines can begin when today's order has been made, to ensure that all the necessary elements are in place for the commencement of these sections of the Act on 1 January. The House may also consider any amendments now required to the Standing Orders of this House.

The Act requires two types of disclosure of Senators, as it does for all groups which come within its remit, an annual statement of interests and ad hoc declarations of interests where a conflict of interest may directly arise, which may occur if a Senator is speaking or voting on a particular issue. Oireachtas Members, including Ministers, must set out annual statements of their interests in a public register. The first register covers interests arising from the time the Act was passed to the first registration date, the period from 22 July to the end of January next. The interests to be declared in the register are 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. Such interests include assets or shares worth less than £10,000, income of £2,000 or less or gifts worth £500 or less, in accordance with the de minimis principle. In no case is the 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, Senators will be required to make a formal declaration if the issue involves a potential conflict of interest for either themselves or a connected person, such as a close relative or business partner. A simple statement that the Member has an interest will be sufficient.

As people holding executive positions, Ministers and other office holders are required to make a more comprehensive declaration of interests than Senators. In addition to the annual declaration of their personal interests, which like other Members forms part of the public register, Ministers are required to make an additional private declaration of those 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 could benefit another Minister.

The Cathaoirleach and Leas-Chathaoirleach are designated as office holders under the Act. In line with the developing role of Oireachtas committees, it will be open to the House to designate the Chairs of particular committees as office holders under the Act. An Attorney General who is a Member of this or the other House will also be defined as an office holder and will come under those provisions in the Act.

The order before the House provides for a commencement day of 1 January next for the sections of the Act dealing with Senators. The first registration date for registration of Members' interests is 31 January next. Members have 30 days from the registration date in which to register their interests. The register is laid before the Houses following a further 30 days. In other words, Members will make their first declarations by the beginning of March and these will be published at the end of that month.

This Act does not only deal with politicians, although that is the aspect which has had most publicity. It sets out rules for the disclosure of potential conflicts of interest for senior civil servants and those running State bodies. Senior public servants, senior executives and members of State bodies are required to make annual declarations, which are private, in respect of their own interests and of those interests known to them of their spouse and children, which could have a bearing on their public duties. They are also 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 forbidden, as a term of their conditions of appointment, from performing a function where there is a conflict of interest unless there are compelling reasons for so doing. 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 on a non-statutory basis. They have been put on a statutory footing in the Act.

The Act is careful to strike a balance between serving the public interest through disclosure and respecting the legitimate right to personal privacy. Those in public life declare their own interests on a public register. Declarations by public servants and State board members will be confidential to the relevant authority. Declarations in relation to family interests, which are only required from people in executive positions, from Ministers but not from TDs and Senators, will be likewise confidential to the commission. Any unauthorised disclosure of such information will constitute a criminal offence. The basic principle is that a public person will make a public declaration, while a private person will make a private one.

Apart from addressing the separation of public and private interests, the Act also deals with gifts to office holders and with the appointment of personal advisers and assistants by Ministers. The Act 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 and special advisers, the Act provides that these will be temporary and will cease when the office holder leaves office. This gives legal effect to something which has been practice for many years. The Government will be precluded from appointing such persons to permanent positions in the Civil Service, again giving legal effect to what is already established practice. The Act also provides for publication of details of all such personal appointments.

An independent commission will oversee key provisions of the Act 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 and the Clerks of both the Dáil and the Seanad. As I said, this House regulates its own affairs for constitutional reasons. A similar role to that of the independent commission will be carried out by the Select Committee of this House while a Select Committee of the Dáil will carry out that function in relation to Dáil backbenchers.

The purpose of the motion before us today is to bring these provisions of the Act as they apply to the Seanad into operation from 1 January next. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Roche

First, I compliment the Minister on this important legislation. We all accept you cannot legislate for ethical standards and we all accept there are occasional slips from ethical standards. I happen to believe, in spite of the extraordinary tides of cynicism which flow backwards and forwards from the pens of scribes who sometimes do not think beyond the end of their page or paragraph, that our commentators have done an extraordinary disservice in general to public life in this country.

Our public service is a good public service, which is motivated by the highest ideals. Politics in this country is motivated, by and large, by the highest ideals. I would not for a moment claim that everybody in politics in this State is a saint, nor do I subscribe to the sometimes evident view that they are all sinners either.

I welcome the Act because, as the Minister stated in her speech, compliance with the regulations provides us with at least some protection or shield against the cynicism which has corroded political life in this country and which has made political life almost worthless. I believe — and I have some experience in this matter — in relation to the contribution of Irish public representatives, that although there have on occasion been fairly serious departures from what any of us would accept as either normal or appropriate standards, by and large the standards have been very high indeed.

People of all parties and none have sought to serve the people of this nation. Occasionally, people in political life deserve a little better than they sometimes get. Therefore, the regulations when they come into effect will be very important, not least because they will show that standards, which are objective and can now be verified, apply in this place, in the other House and in political life and public life in general.

I hope when the regulations take effect, when the committee is in place and the system is operating, that people will not turn to the old Irish practice of whispering behind the hand and suggesting they know what it says on the surface but they know what goes on below the surface. Innuendo is one of the most destructive features of the Irish way of conducting politics. Innuendo destroys politics. It destroys the enthusiasm and the energy which volunteers largely bring to politics.

I believe the regulations are good but there are a couples of points which I would make. I do not wish to politicise the debate because this is not about partisan politics. It is about standards. I cannot pass without commenting on the fact that we have lost a chief executive of a State enterprise today. It will become increasingly difficult to persuade men and women from the business world to lend themselves to support the boards of State bodies. They are paid very little and are subject to the most extraordinary scrutiny. Sometimes they are subject to extremely damaging innuendo and, as we have seen in recent times, can be embroiled in extraordinary political convolutions. There is an important point to be made here. Not only are we trying to deal with issues of a fiduciary nature, issues related to investments or interests in the normal sense, but we have to raise our eyes and begin to look at what is happening in our public service. These regulations and the Act are a start and are not the conclusion. I think the Minister would agree with that particular view.

Turning to specifics, it is important we have a select committee but it is also important that the select committee will have teeth. The Minister is fully aware, as is the Leader, that one of the major problems in parliamentary committees at the moment is they have no teeth. They have no capacity to investigate and this Act will begin to redress that particular problem.

Notwithstanding good efforts by different Governments of different hues in recent times to try to bolster the committees, improve their standing and capacity to do a job in an objective sense, my experience is that when it comes down to it, unfortunately partisan politics intrude in the matter. Again, I do not wish to be controversial.

I was chairman for a number of years of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on State-sponsored Bodies. Throughout my chairmanship I tried to avoid as far as was humanly possible any attempt to utilise a parliamentary or political majority there. While chairman of that committee I initiated investigations which were highly unpopular with the Government of the day, or at least with one senior member of that Government who from time to time reminded me, from his august chair in another part of these buildings, that he was not too happy with the direction in which I was taking the committee. In recent times there was an effort to stall this downward spiral, this so-called Lowry or Tuffy affair. Unfortunately, partisan politics were used in the committee to prevent the committee carrying out an objective appraisal of what was happening. As a consequence, politics as a whole, the State sector in particular and the State boards involved have all suffered.

The point I am making is as much an admonition to this side of the House as the other side. When the select committee is in place it will be important that we put partisan politics outside the door, as has been the tradition in the Committee on Procedure and Privileges over the years. That is helped by the fact that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges operate in privacy and this will also happen in initial investigations in this context. There must be a balance between what will become public and what is done in private. But if the committee is to have an impact it is important that, as far as is possible in the political milieu, it is above partisan politics.

I do not wish to suggest that I object to the select committee being chaired by the Cathaoirleach. I would have mentioned any such objection during the debate on the Bill. The Cathaoirleach has my absolute respect — there is no gainsaying that — but I suggest we should examine this point. The principle applied in the Committee on Public Accounts is that it is traditionally chaired by somebody from the Opposition. That is not to suggest that the Ceann Comhairle and the Cathaoirleach are not more than capable of chairing it.

In the context of the annual statement of interest, I can only recall one occasion when a Member of either House went to the trouble of declaring an interest. A couple of years ago my predecessor as chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Commercial State-sponsored Bodies made a declaration of interest because of a connection a firm with which he was connected may have had with the sugar company. It became an issue of major political debate and a huge brouhaha was made about it even though he behaved properly.

When we establish declarations of interest one hopes that people will understand that the declaration of an interest does not mean the person making it must isolate themselves from the real world, because that is neither practical nor possible. On the occasion in question we investigated the charges made against a Member of the other House who happened to be chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Commercial State-sponsored Bodies. He was found to have operated correctly but, unfortunately, the truth and his exoneration came on the eve of an election and were lost sight of. One of the tragedies on that occasion was that a voluntarily made declaration of interest was used to take an Oireachtas committee away from an investigation of the affairs of the sugar company.

The Minister said that interests below a threshold value do not have to be disclosed, meaning assets or shares worth less than £10,000. I will probably be howled at from all sides, but I believe an even smaller shareholding could require a declaration of interest. A shareholding might on its face value be worth less than £10,000 because of the current state of the market. However, the temptation might still be there to do something that would be supportive of the company and ultimately boost the shareholding. Share values go up and down and over time this could present a problem.

The Minister stated correctly that this is not just an Act for politicians but an Act for the wider public service. We are well served by the public service in this country. Nonetheless, it is not all made up of saints. The application of the wider portions of this Act to the public service is both good and beneficial. The public view of both political and public life is not objectively tied to the performance of politicians or the public service. Unfortunately, the performance of politicians and the public service is presented through the media to the people.

There is a regrettable and downward spiral in the way the media treats politics and politicians of all parties and of none. We have witnessed in recent times a reprehensible move away from the objective standards of good journalism and, rather than getting objective commentary, we are being given highly subjective and highly biased personal views. We cannot complain, by and large, about the treatment of Oireachtas reports in the media. However, we can complain about colour reports that are written from bizarre angles. I do not know what they are intended to achieve but they are not news — they are views. Our newspapers are becoming views papers rather than newspapers.

There is also a regrettable indication of connections in recent years which means that the objectivity of some commentators is highly suspect. In the ongoing divorce referendum debate, for example, at least one newspaper tells us where it stands but others do not. However, that contentious issue is not touched on by this Bill. I regret that in talking about ethics in politics and in the public service there is a steely silence from the Fourth Estate when it comes to talking about ethics in journalism. Perhaps when the Minister has completed this job the ladies and gentlemen of the Fourth Estate might turn their minds and talents to that issue. There is a job to be done in that regard too.

This is good legislation. There will be problems in the years ahead; no legislation dealing with this thorny issue could but have problems. There will be difficulties and we will have to return to the legislation and make adjustments from time to time. The Minister has made it a criminal offence to abuse the privacy of private information which is provided under this Bill, particularly from the point of view of office holders and near relatives. It will be particularly important to ensure that abuses are policed and punished.

I am pleased that this regulation is being introduced. I compliment the Minister on it. I cross swords with her on other issues occasionally — we are still waiting for the Freedom of Information Bill but that will be another day's work.

Mr. Manning

I welcome the Minister and compliment her on reaching the end of what has been a long odyssey for her and for Members of the Oireachtas. A great deal of learning has been involved for all of us. I also compliment her on her clear outline of how the regulations will work.

Like all Members of the House, I welcome the regulations. They will give us the protection we do not have at present. Only yesterday I was reading the Official Dáil reports for 1953 and I came across a statement by Dr. Jim Ryan who was the Minister for Health at the time. He said he did not know why people entered politics but it certainly was not for the money. In his time in politics, which dated from the foundation of the State, he said almost nobody had left politics better off than when they entered. We can go back further. In 1932 when the founding fathers of the State left office most of them were beggared by the experience; most of them were barely able to make ends meet and pensions had to be introduced for ministerial service in the 1930s to redress this.

All of us have seen Members of this House who were broken on leaving the House and who returned two or three years later looking healthier, fitter, younger and more prosperous. They find it is easier to make money in the private sector than being a politician. We have been loth to speak out about this and to put the facts before the people. These regulations will go a long way towards protecting politicians and ensuring that there is transparency and that we are seen as we are. We have nothing to fear on this.

I agree with much of what Senator Roche said, especially with his view that the operation of ethics does not take place a vacuum. We have created a system of regulation and are serious about it. I assure the Minister that she has the full support of the House on this, although it leaves the Minister's domain after it leaves the House today. However, it is our job, one which the House will take very seriously, to ensure that the regulations are properly implemented and adhered to.

Much of the scrutiny of what takes place here and much of what the public knows about what we do is transmitted to it through the media. In this respect, I am concerned about some recent developments in the Irish media. Let me put this into context. I am not indulging in media bashing as I do not wish to get into anything as simplistic, futile or pointless. The media are very complex and diverse. There are good and excellent aspects but there are also indifferent and bad aspects. However, we all know that a healthy, free and vital media — the Fourth Estate as we call it — is one of the essential cornerstones of a democracy.

In recent years all of us have seen huge advances in the development, growth and sophistication of the Irish media, including the growth in strength and the comprehensiveness with which it covers public issues. As somebody who professionally spends much time reading through old documents and old newspapers, if I compare the level, depth and quality of coverage today with what existed 30 or 40 years ago, the situation, for the most part, is infinitely better. We are a better informed community, there is a much greater level of information transmitted and there is often an attempt to understand the complexity and not to have a simplistic approach.

However, I have seen some trends in the Irish media in recent times which I find deeply disturbing. Let me give some examples as it is better to give examples than speak in generalities. Earlier this year somebody put up a reward for information which would lead to the conviction of any politician involved in corruption to do with the planning process. We were told this was a public spirited person. He or she did not give their name. We do not know why but those in the media who knew this person assured us that the person was honourable, so we had to take their word on this.

A firm of Newry solicitors then placed advertisements in the newspapers seeking information. That was all right. However, let us look at what happened subsequently. Over a period of weeks names, two in particular, were fed out from this firm. Specific sums were given as having passed over as bribes and specific developments were named. The name of one person was attached to a large sum of money and a specific development. This person was, in effect, named by some of the newspapers. The party to which he belonged, the senior position he held, the area he represented, were all clearly identified. Not once, but over a series of weeks, information was drip fed from this legal firm in Newry whose ethics I would question very deeply. No charges were made, no evidence of any kind was produced yet, by innuendo, this person was, in effect, guilty. His name was bandied around these Houses, the city and the country on foot of innuendo in the newspapers, never mind that the charges were totally without foundation and that there was not a scintilla of truth in them.

That person and his family lived through the summer under a cloud because, in effect, he had been convicted by the newspapers, especially by one of them. It did not matter that there were no charges, no evidence and not a scintilla of truth in the allegations. This man, one of the most honourable Members of the other House, a very decent and honourable man, and his family suffered horribly throughout the summer. For all of us, our good name is the most important, cherished, valuable thing. Our reputation is the most valuable thing we have in politics.

Eventually, when even that newspaper accepted that there was not and had never been any truth whatsoever in the accusations made, that newspaper did a brazen about-turn and asked why this poor man was subjected to all of these baseless charges. Everyone knew, it reported, that they could not be true. It was a brazen about-turn. I question the ethics of the solicitors involved. I put a question mark over the so-called benefactor. Why does he not say who he or she is and what his or her motives were?

My real concern in this is the ethics of newspaper coverage, of the reporting of politics as it happened in this instance. That was not the only incident this summer. The person in question could not reply to the accusations. No charges had been made, there was only innuendo, but the word was out. He was not the only person; others were placed in a similar situation with no possibility of redress. I wonder if the editors concerned ever asked themselves, as they were passing judgement on others, about the ethics of that piece of journalism over the course of the summer.

More recently and dramatically, there is the treatment meted out to Mrs. Geraldine Mahon. Mrs. Mahon is a friend of mine. She is a very good and fine person. She is a private citizen; and yet on the word of a man who is in effect a convicted liar, she was harassed and hounded by the media. She could not leave her house to go to the shops or bring her children to school. Wherever she went she was harassed by the media. Her character was scrutinised and abused by some of the people who write on the back of our newspapers. It was an appalling episode. What public good or public interest justified that sort of behaviour by sections of the Irish media? It was an outrageous intrusion on the private life of a private individual. That person had no right of redress. She eventually had to leave the country simply to escape the harassment.

Earlier this year, when we were talking about the Competition Authority and the Irish Press, we were told that Independent Newspapers had to be allowed get control of the Irish Press because if Independent Newspapers did not have this control, we would be open to an invasion from the worst of the British press, from Murdoch, Black, from Rothermere and Beaverbrook and Northcliff and the whole lot.

Mr. Norris

They are dead.

Mr. Manning

Their spirit lives on. We would be subject to all of this. In the two instances I have mentioned — and there were more — it was not Murdoch or Black, it was Independent Newspapers who were leading the pack in each case. Independent Newspapers have very little indeed to learn from Conrad Black or Rupert Murdoch when it comes to these tactics. I will come back to this point in a moment, because there is a serious question — Senator Roche referred to it — which our newspapers and media have to address.

I want to say a brief word about the famous edition of "Prime Time" which featured Mr. Tuffy. In terms of competence and professionalism it was an abject performance, but my main concern about that programme was that there was so little concern on the part of RTE, especially the programme makers —"Oh, we got half it right. We did establish something". Too bad if a Minister, a public person, had to have his name dragged through the mud in the half they got wrong. There seems to be very little concern about that. In other words, politicians, as far as some sections of the media are concerned, have no real rights. We are all fair game. There is a huge absence of basic fair play when it comes to this type of activity.

Anybody who criticises the media in specific terms in this country may themselves become a target. If they do, so be it. I hope not. I do not think it would be particularly helpful, because I want to be helpful in what I am saying today about ethics. In regard to my background, many of my friends are media people. My best man was a journalist, the godfather of my son is a journalist. I have written for all the papers, I have been on radio and television and I tend to keep low company — I mix with journalists much of the time. They would say they keep low company by mixing with a politician.

I have a strong belief in a strong media. I am not speaking from a desire to make the headlines but because I am genuinely concerned about the behaviour of certain sections of the Irish media who regard themselves as guardians of ethics and the protectors of high standards in public life. I know a great many journalists share my concerns. It behoves those who control the media to address the issues of ethical and proper standards of behaviour in the media and a proper form of redress, not just small clarifications or corrections for those who have been wronged. Innuendo can go on over a long period and a person may not have a chance to answer. The media should address the sort of harassment which a decent private person had to suffer at the hands of the Irish media over the past few weeks.

Ethics in public life extend beyond people in these Houses and the public service. The media are very much part of the ethos of public service and they say so themselves. They are part of a healthy democracy. In the spirit in which I raise these questions, I ask the controlling voices in our media to look hard at some of the standards of journalism they have given us over the past few years, especially in recent times. If they are serious about fulfilling their public functions and about being part of democracy, they have hard questions to ask themselves. I would like to see these questions asked with a certain sense of humility on the part of the media and I would like to hear what they have to say about these issues. With the Ethics in Public Office Act we have started our work of openness and I hope the media will do likewise.

Mr. Norris

May I share my time with Senator Henry?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Norris

I support what Senator Manning said about the perception of politicians. I am irritated by reporters in the print and broadcasting media who frequently draw attention to the fact that few people attend debates in the House. The reason for this is that we may be attending meetings of committees or working in our offices. This is an easy cheap shot and the people who make it know it is not valid or legitimate.

I may have been ranging a little widely but I am following in the footsteps of the Leader. What we are doing today is little other than a technical acknowledgement which allows the provisions of the Ethics in Public Office Act, which have already been fully debated, to come into force. The Minister indicated in her opening remarks that she did not think it appropriate to visit the particular elements of the Bill in any great detail because this would be more relevant to Second Stage.

There should be respect for political life and those engaged in it. Since becoming a Member of this House I have gained an increased respect for those engaged in the profession of politics, which I regard as honourable. I hope the Act will lead to an enhanced perception of those who practise this profession. This may happen, but I am not sure it will. It will be difficult to shake the belief of people who are convinced that politicians are corrupt and who wish to advance this view.

I would be happy to comply with the requirements and put on public record that I am the director of several companies. I am managing director of two companies, one of which I am the majority shareholder and which has substantial property holdings. I have never made a single penny from these companies. In fact, they have cost me money. The purpose and intent of one of these companies has been to enhance the cultural life of Dublin and the aim of the other has been to create a national community centre for gay people.

In the firm of Hirschfeld Enterprises not only did none of us make any money but we were surcharged 20 per cent for non-distribution of profit. Because none of us took anything from the company we were penalised for working for nothing and generating money to do the work which in other countries governments accept as their responsibility.

Despite this and the fact that audited accounts, as required by law, were published every year, people all over Dublin were convinced that I was personally raking in money and that this was how I managed to buy a magnificent mansion in North Great George's Street. They did not see this house when I purchased it but they subsequently saw it in newspapers. It will be difficult to disabuse people, who are convinced that politicians are corrupt, of this cherished notion and I am not certain that this Bill will do so, nor am I certain that it is necessarily true to say that all angles are covered in this Act.

I am putting hearsay evidence on the record but I was at a dinner party about two weeks ago which was attended by shrewd financial advisers and commentators. One of them in particular indicated that ways had already been discovered by accountants to get round the provisions of this Act. The Minister is shaking her head. I only regret that I was dislodged in another conversational area and I did not pursue the matter to find out exactly what these techniques and manoeuvres might be because I would have placed them on the record with considerable relish. I am interpreting the Minister's body language. She is vigorously shaking her head to indicate that she does not believe this is possible but my informant indicated that it is a reality.

Where is the register to be held? Is this indicated in the Act?

Ms. E. Fitzgerald

In the House.

Mr. Norris

Will there be publication of this information in the newspapers and so on?

Ms E. Fitzgerald

Yes.

Mr. Norris

This seems little more complicated than an annual income tax return and I assume the information we will have to provide, such as outside income, shares, directorships and so on, can be easily sent to the necessary authorities. I would have no problem with this.

Gifts other than personal gifts must be disclosed. I am not sure what this means. I do not receive gifts other than personal ones. I presume this is a polite euphemism for bribes.

Ms E. Fitzgerald

Waterford Glass.

Mr. Norris

I received Waterford Glass on one occasion for being rude to the General Council of County Councils.

There has been discussion on ethics in the media and I am entertained by the fact that this happened. I used the fact that this Bill was on the Order Paper a few weeks ago to trawl widely into this area on the occasion when Bishop Comiskey was pursued to a clinic for substance abuse treatment in the United States. I thought that doorstepping him in this way was a barbarous invasion of his right to privacy and, I imagine, something which would be completely contra-indicated by the terms of his treatment. If somebody is suffering from alcoholism, partly as a result of stress, the last thing he needs is the pressure of the press sending notes through the door and leaving letters to be read and answered. This seems to me to constitute a clear case of harassment.

We are lucky that we have good media, particularly newspapers, in this country but I share Senator Manning's worry that there may be a growing "tabloidisation" of the Irish press. I would hate to think that we would sink to the ethical level of Rupert Murdoch; this would be regrettable. We have a tabloid press which sometimes acts irresponsibly and deliberately paints a bad picture of politicians.

I am a member of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. Even some of my colleagues said that I joined this committee to go on trips. I have been on the committee since its inception and I have not once been on a trip sponsored by it. I have been abroad a good deal. I have travelled with the IPU and have been on other missions. I turned down several trips, one of which was to New York and another was to Israel — I declined that because I had just returned from there. I go there frequently and know the situation there and I thought it would be more valuable if another member who had never been there went.

The same applies to the committee's recent trip to China. I was there in April and it seemed to me to be idiotic to go to Beijing again to rehearse the same scenes and revisit the same places. It would be much better to allow somebody else to go, so I withdrew from it. Nevertheless, people still have the idea that a person is only motivated to get involved in the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs because they may get a free holiday and the less responsible sections of the media have much to answer for in this area.

I went on a trip to Australia on which Senator Henry had been invited. However, she could not go because of other commitments so I took her place. One of our tabloid papers got onto this and had a huge headline about politicians on junkets. I spoke freely to them, told them I was glad to be going and I defended the idea of going. As a nation, we needed to be represented at these international conferences if we were to be taken seriously. When I was there I made a scathing attack on Australian foreign policy, as conducted by Gareth Evans, from inside its parliament building and it was taken up in newspapers not only in Australia but in New York, Hong Kong and other areas of the world. However, it did not rate one single mention in Irish newspapers, the same newspapers that put my photograph under the headline "Politician off on a junket" on their front pages. I had my contribution faxed to their offices and my secretary telephoned them. However, she was told a politician on a junket was a headline and a story but a politician working was not. That is a pity and it needs to be examined.

Senator Manning referred to the recent extraordinary and bizarre happenings in what has now become known as the Lowry affair. However, the lady to whom he referred was partly the author of her own misfortune. She vehemently and passionately defended the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, but then found he was distancing himself from her by calling her a casual acquaintance so the way it appeared in the press was that it looked as if she had volunteered a passionate defence. Perhaps through naiveté, she may have walked into that one herself.

With regard to reporting in the newspapers, serious ethical considerations are sometimes brought up. There was a piece in the Irish Independent a few weeks ago under the by-line of Sam Smyth where he made certain allegations about Minister Lowry's previous career in business which would be very worrying if substantiated. I am not sure if they can be but if they cannot, the Minister would be well advised to have recourse to legal advice, or at least to put out a statement denying these allegations. It appeared he had been employed in an engineering firm called Butler Engineering and had walked away with 98 per cent of its contracts in an involvement with another firm subsequently, which had a serious impact on the trading position of Butler Engineering. I am not able to say if those statements are fact but if they are, they certainly do not allow Minister Lowry to be picky about the ethical considerations of others involved in business. That article raises the question of the perception of ethical standards in public life. I am surprised more was not made of it, that its terms were not denied by Minister Lowry, or that further action was not taken on that matter. It would have been appropriate to have done so.

Dr. Henry

I thank Senator Norris for sharing his time with me.

I have two reservations about the Act. I cannot understand why there was such a delay in introducing the regulations for Deputies and Senators. Do we all come under the regulations at the same time?

Ms E. Fitzgerald

Yes.

Dr. Henry

I am glad to hear that, otherwise people may be cynical and think it took a certain length of time for Deputies and Senators to get their affairs in order.

My second reservation, about which I expressed great concern before, concerns medical services which may be given either free of charge or at a reduced rate. Whatever about giving services for free, it is hard to know if they are being given at a reduced rate. I am not as concerned with the individual getting services free of charge or at a reduced rate as I am with a member of their family. Although that family member does not have to be named, they can often easily be identified. I do not like that at all.

Under section 34 of the Act, submissions made about medical services will be kept for 15 years. I feel this is unnecessary. People's private medical conditions and files are their own business and a commission of the Oireachtas investigating the ethics of Members should not even be keeping the names of those who gave treatment to this person because often that is far too specific. Psychiatric and psychological services are also included. This is a grave intrusion on the privacy of people who do not come under these regulations but belong to the families of those who do. As a member of the medical profession, I very much resent this provision and it should not be there.

The medical profession tries to be careful about keeping their patients' records confidential. While services rendered do not have to be put down it will be easy to identify who the person may be and the services given. I objected strongly to this provision at the time and wished it could have been removed from the Bill but it was not. Therefore, I again record my strong objections to it.

Ms O'Sullivan

We are almost at the end of dealing with this issue and we hope the regulations will be in operation on 1 January. I do not want to rehash the points made during the debates on the Bill; nevertheless, I take this opportunity to state the broad principle that the public has the right to know that its representatives are acting in the public and not their own interest. This must be spelt out to the public so there is no shadow of doubt, and this legislation is there for that purpose.

Nevertheless, we must get the balance right between the public's right to know and every individual's right to privacy in personal matters and that balance is in this legislation. It is up to this House to regulate its business under the Constitution and we must ensure the guidelines are operated in a way that carries out that specific need.

The fact there has been such a willing acceptance of this legislation across the political spectrum in both Houses must reassure the general public that public representatives are willing to co-operate with this legislation, we want it, we see it as a protection for ourselves, the public knows where we stand, it knows about our interests and that decisions in this and the other House are taken in their interest. I share the statements expressed by other Members. This protects us from misunderstanding, from any kind of suspicion, and the sad perception that public representatives are in the business for personal gain. From my experience as a public representative at local level for ten years and in this House for a shorter time, that is not the reality. As other Senators said, public representatives work morning, noon and night for no personal gain and often end up much poorer than they would have been had they stayed outside the political process.

In saying this we are reiterating what has been said many times before. Nevertheless it must be said because, as Senator Norris stated, a headline stating a public representative is on a junket will take precedence over a report that he or she has spent an afternoon in this House working constructively on Committee Stage of a Bill which will have an important effect on people's lives. Such political work, which requires much time and energy on the part of Members of both Houses and those on local authorities, gets little publicity. We cannot entirely blame the media because the public wants to read juicy stories or a headline which feeds its misconceptions. There is no easy answer but the fact that we have debated the media as well as public representatives is almost inevitable because the message is passed to the public through the media.

In introducing the guidelines and working with the commission we in this House need a clear understanding of what the legislation entails. I understand from the Minister's contributions on Committee and Report Stages of the Act that such assistance will be available for individual Senators who may not be clear on what is required of them and who wish to comply with the legislation.

Senator Norris raised the matter of directorships which have no remuneration. I am in that position also — I am a director of two non-profit making companies and I have no problem declaring them. It is right that they should be declared in case legislation arrives which might affect these bodies — one is a theatre company and the other is involved in public health. We all understand the reasons for including such matters although there may be no monetary gain.

As the Minister said, under Article 15.10 of the Constitution this House has the power to draw up rules for itself. The Clerk of the Seanad is on the commission so we are connected with it in that way. Senator Henry's point about medical assistance was debated at length on Committee and Report Stages of the Act, when concerns were expressed by Senator Mooney and herself. Last night I read that part of the Official Report; perhaps the Minister will elaborate but my understanding is that we have the power to draw up guidelines and indicate the detail required. We can decide the level of disclosure and the amount of information made available in such sensitive personal areas. It would be helpful if the Minister addressed this point.

The two types of disclosure are annual statements of interests and ad hoc disclosures where there might be a conflict of interest in a specific situation. These are self-explanatory and understandable but perhaps the Minister would elaborate on ad hoc disclosures. The legislation provides that this will apply where a Member was voting or speaking on a matter in which he or she might be considered to have an interest. This presumably applies to anything which would be discussed in the House; even where the Member did not intend to make a contribution to the debate he or she might vote on it.

As I said, inevitably the media is bound up in a debate on ethics in public office because the information is transmitted through it. I concur with other Senators — many of whom referred to specific cases — in doubting whether the public interest was served when people's private affairs were dragged through the media, without evidence or proof that such persons were implicated in the innuendo. I do not know if there can be collective guidelines in the media similar to the statutory regulations we are putting in place today. If so, the media should implement guidelines for itself and for individual reporters so that they know the boundaries they should not cross. Reporters are answerable to their editors and legal advisers within their newspapers or other media outlets but the time has come for the media voluntarily to undertake such guidelines. I would be interested to hear their response.

I am also concerned about ethics in public debate in general, not only ethics in public office. In the last few weeks we have seen doubtful standards of public debate in the divorce referendum. Many specific points of fact have been made, such as the total nonsense on billboards concerning increases in taxation as a direct result of divorce legislation, which has been answered by the Minister for Finance and others. An even more damaging and unethical advertisement is the one reading: "Hello divorce, Bye Bye Daddy". That advertisement should be challenged, although I am not sure what powers the Advertising Standards Authority of Ireland has in this area. It is appalling that this advertisement faces fathers driving to work in this city and elsewhere. It frightens children and is hurtful and unfair to individual fathers who are concerned for their children. There should be ethics in public debate in general, not just in public office. It is appalling that people are subjected to such false, unfair and hurtful advertising connected to a public debate. That point should be made in conjunction with this legislation.

I welcome the introduction of these regulations from 1 January and look forward to the Minister's response to my queries.

Mr. Lanigan

I will not delay the House on this matter because I wish to attend the meeting of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs at 4 p.m. which will discuss Nigeria. The Leader suggested the Seanad might debate this subject also.

Mr. Manning

That will not happen today.

Mr. Lanigan

I have no problem with these regulations because, for 24 years in one case and 20 in another, I have been a member of a local authority and had to sign declarations of interest in respect of both. However, the Act is an intrusion into the lives of public representatives because we are being asked to list our interests outside our role as public representatives. We are no longer allowed to divide ourselves into a public and a private person. This will dictate against professional and business people entering public life; they will look at the register and will not wish to list all their interests for the public.

By making this open to the public we are really opening it to the media. Once the register is left in the Oireachtas Library, every newspaper commentator will check in what companies a Member has an interest and use that to attack that public representative. That is not good.

One of the problems opened up was the ethics of the media, which are self-regulatory. When news commentators are commentating on legal, business and public matters they do not state their directorships or their interest in what they are making into a public affair. Some commentators have a definite interest in ensuring that certain companies receive good press because they are shareholders. There should be a regulatory body for news commentators.

It is not the ordinary news reporters but the commentators who create the problem. While those who report on the proceedings of the Dáil and Seanad may not report enough of what I or other Members said, they give the kernel of what was said. However, the commentators try to run down the people who work in the public arena of the Seanad and the Dáil and have created the problems and the so-called cynicism. However, the cynicism is mainly in the media itself. Politicians would not be reelected to the Houses of the Oireachtas and local authorities if the public was that cynical about their openness and ethics.

I am glad we have had an opening of the declarations of interest. Two Senators have stated that they are not making money out of the companies with which they are involved. Where will it finish? Senator O'Sullivan will not have to declare her interest in a theatre company if the value is under £10,000. I think many people around the country would like to know about it if she has a theatre company in which directors can have an interest of over £10,000. According to my reading, interests less than £10,000 do not have to be declared.

The Minister stated in her speech that "in no case is disclosure of the amount of income or the value of the interest required". What does that mean? It states that one has to declare an interest below a value of £10,000 but then it states that "in no case is disclosure of the amount of income or the value of the interest required". There seems to be a problem there although I may have difficulty in interpreting what the draftsman said.

In regard to personal gifts, the Minister referred to Waterford Glass. Does this mean we can get a personal gift which we can wear but not one which can be put on a mantelpiece? There seems to be an anomaly there but I presume she will tell us about it.

I am glad Senator Norris can go around the world without travelling through the Department of Foreign Affairs. I have no problem going on trips and I will go on any I find of value. People can call it a junket or whatever they like but no voter of mine has ever said to me that they were not voting for me because I went on a trip. Many people regard trips as a valuable learning process if they are dealt with properly. I do not think that anyone would give out about that.

There is now a statutory regulatory body for public representatives. It is time for statutory regulatory bodies to be set up for the legal, medical and insurance professions. Why do public representatives have to be statutorily regulated when there are huge problems in other areas which would be better addressed if they were regulated by statute rather than by self-regulatory bodies? These are the areas where the major problems have arisen.

I am worried about the question of an ad hoc declaration of interest if we are speaking or voting in the House. That means that every farmer in the Oireachtas would have to declare that interest. Perhaps I should have read the Bill more closely but it appears from the Minister's speech that those involved in the farming profession will have to declare that interest if they speak or vote on a farming issue. Obviously, they and their wives, families, cousins and so on have an interest. Where does the ad hoc declaration end?

Ministers, office holders, Members of the Oireachtas and directors and chief executives of State companies are mentioned on a few occasions in the Minister's speech. She states that whereas our declaration of interests will be an open declaration, the declarations of those who work for semi-State companies will be held in private. Ministers' special advisers are also mentioned in the speech but the Minister does not say whether they have to declare their interests and, if they have, where they have to declare them.

The Act will not create many problems. However, in the past number of years fewer and fewer businessmen have entered the Houses of the Oireachtas and I feel that this Act will mean even fewer people taking up directorships in public companies. I presume certain Ministers would like that because it would mean they could fill the vacancies with civil servants and so on. There is a danger that people of standing in the business community could be lost to those companies because they will not want to get involved, not just because of the openness required under this Act but because of what has happened to directors of public companies in the past six months. Enough has been said about that.

I regret that Senator Norris stated that the Minister, Deputy Lowry, might have been unethical in his dealings with a certain company. I do not think the company would have wished to be named here by Senator Norris because that matter has been finished for many years. If there had been any problems they would have been well ironed out by now and it was not helpful to have that engineering company named here again this evening.

I welcome the Act and thank the Minister for getting it passed.

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

I thank Senators for their contributions.

Mr. Lanigan

I have to leave now but I am not being discourteous to the Minister.

Ms E. Fitzgerald

I understand the importance of the subject with which Senator Lanigan is dealing. I thank the House for the very constructive and interesting contributions. I always find it a pleasure to come to the Seanad as the quality of discussion is always very high. The tone and atmosphere in this House is a pleasure.

Senator Lanigan asked if ministerial special advisers will have to make declarations of interest. Senior special advisers, but not personal secretaries or drivers, will have to make declarations of interest in the same way as principal officer level civil servants. However, ministerial special advisers, as distinct from civil servants, are political appointees and serve in quasi-public positions. Declarations made by such advisers will be published.

Senator Lanigan raised the issue of ad hoc declarations by Members. He inquired whether a Senator who is also a farmer would have to declare that they own a farm and make money from headage each time a debate took place on headage. The Act specifically states that if the nature of one's interest is very general — such as being a farmer, in relation to a debate on agriculture, or a parent, in relation to a debate on education — that interest need not be declared. In a case where, for example, a Member owned shares in a particular company, the fortunes of which were the subject of a vote or debate in the Seanad, the Senator involved would have to declare that interest. The House itself would clarify the level of detail required. That is specified in the Act. This issue involves people who have a material interest in and stand to benefit from the matter under discussion rather than someone speaking or voting in a general capacity as a parent, taxpayer, mortgage holder or farmer. Broad general interests are unimportant, but specific interests must be declared.

Senators Lanigan and Norris raised the issue of personal gifts. A present given to me by my husband on my birthday represents a personal gifts. If that gift happened to be worth £700 I would not have to declare it because it is of a personal nature. If I were presented with a gift at a function that was valued at over £500 — I usually receive a bunch of flowers, with which I am delighted — that gift would become the property of the State. However, this would not be the case in respect of an election donation, which is declarable but not surrenderable. This will put Ministers on the same footing as other people. That is the distinction between a personal gift, which is a gift presented to one by friends or family and is not declarable, and a gift given to a Member by virtue of the office they hold. The gift of a piece of Waterford Glass worth £700 presented by to a Member in their capacity as president of the local golf club is not surrenderable because it is given by virtue of a different kind of office. Under section 15, gifts are surrenderable if presented by virtue of ministerial office.

Directorships are declarable under section 3 of the Second Schedule regardless of whether they yield money. Many Members are directors of charitable bodies. I myself am a patron of a housing association for homeless women. Such directorships are declarable despite the fact that they do not yield any financial gain.

Senator Lanigan also inquired whether this legislation was intrusive and if it would drive business people out of politics. Senator Quinn, who is one of Ireland's leading business people and has entered politics, made a splendid speech during the Second Stage debate. He argued cogently that the kind of declaration involved in the Ethics in Public Office Act would not be a barrier to a business person such as himself becoming involved in public service also. The former Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds, a well known business person, declared his interests on the day he was elected to that office. It was no big deal. There have been clear examples of people who place such interests on the record with no difficulty. Personally, I do not believe this will prove to be a problem. It is important, however, to stop the kind of innuendo which can occur.

The public must clearly see that someone engaged in public affairs must not be involved with their own private business. That is a protection for business people who become involved in public life. The public must be sure that a statutory framework of rules and regulations exists to ensure that the two remain separate. This has been the standard to date for people involved in public life who have private business interests. The State has been well served by such people.

Senator O'Sullivan raised the question of detail with regard to ad hoc declarations when a Member is speaking or voting. The person need only say “I have an interest”, nothing more. Such declarations concern cases where a specific material interest, not shared by a broad generality of people, is involved. Provision is made under section 30 of the Act for people to make voluntary statements. I would advise Members that if they are in doubt about something, they should declare an interest. The Act specifies statutory obligations and does not include a catchall clause. We were advised that such a clause would be unconstitutional. If people are in doubt, provision is made under section 30 to deal with that eventuality. Any voluntary declarations made under section 30 have the same status as declarations made under the remainder of the Act.

Senator Henry raised the issue of medical declarations. Section 34 (2) deals with this question and is a modification of section 34 (1). A huge amount of detail would be required in relation to medical or legal expenses if that exclusion were not present. I must declare that at present Senator Henry is treating me for a problem with varicose veins. She will be fully paid for this service by the VHI. I respect the Senator's sincerity in making that point. Section 34 (2) specifies in law how little detail is required. The Select Committee of this House will provide further guidelines in that regard. The names of relatives receiving treatment, the area of medicine or the specialist involved need not be provided. All that need be declared is that medical treatment was received in respect of a connected person. Only a very general declaration is required. No one will know whether my relations are suffering from mental illness and being treated free of charge by somebody else. Reasonable safeguards are provided, but I understand the Senator's concerns.

Senator Roche raised a number of specific points. I can inform the Senator that the Select Committee will have teeth. The Privilege and Compelability Bill was recently published and similar, in some cases slightly stronger, powers as those provided in legislation are included there.

The Senator also raised the issue of the possibility of the Select Committee being partisan in nature. He stated that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges had been very non-partisan and I acknowledge that fact. Whatever the composition of the Select Committee on a party basis, it will be bound by the rules of natural justice. It will have to act in a quasi-judicial manner. This is all set out within the terms of the Act. The overriding requirement of natural justice will be present. Whatever people's political passions, on attending the committee they will be bound by the rules of natural justice in relation to assessing or ruling on any particular complaint. I feel confident that the Select Committees in both Houses will work along those lines. In relation to annual statements, provision has been made for voluntary statements in that regard.

Senator Norris raised the question of loopholes. I have been approached by Members who stated that they have placed property in the names of their wives or partners. Such eventualities are covered under the Act. If a Member places property under another person's name without a consideration, that property is treated as theirs for the purposes of this Act in the same way as it would be treated under the Capital Acquisitions Act. Therefore, they are trapped.

Senator Henry expressed concern that the dates on the Orders would differ between the Houses. The dates for both will be exactly the same. We had hoped to place this motion before the House last week but the House was involved with other business. A delay of 14 days has taken place in making the Orders but the dates are identical for both Houses. The Senator was also concerned with regard to information being held for 15 years under section 34 (2). So little information will be available that holding it for 15 years will not cause a problem. If problems emerge with any part of this legislation, it will be revisited. The purpose of the legislation is to be helpful to the public service and the public process. It is not designed to catch or trap people or deal with them in an unfair manner. The legislation is concerned with promoting trust in public life and in the quality of public service.

Senator Manning raised an important point on the conduct of the media, which perhaps does not relate directly to the Act or this motion. I strongly agree with what he said. When drawing up the legislation we were careful to strike a fair balance between the right of private citizens to privacy and public disclosure for public figures. Although this legislation was complicated, we were scrupulous in keeping that private-public focus. That is why there are different rules and regulations for the different groups of people covered under the Act. I feel sorry for private citizens who do not put their head above parapet for election. The media have no business showing their photographs or dragging them through the mud by innuendo. I support what Senator Manning said in that regard.

A number of Members referred to the need for guidelines for the media. A commission on the newspaper industry is sitting at present. I propose to give it a copy of today's debate and will ask it to look at issues raised by Senators, which are important and should be taken on board by the commission. The media, including the national newspapers, have looked for a revision of the libel laws which they believe gags investigative journalism. Greater openness brings with it greater responsibility. I am preparing legislation on freedom of information which will open up a considerable amount of public information to journalists and which will offer new challenges. There is that concomitant responsibility on people to exercise that freedom and openness responsibly.

Any Government examining proposals to loosen the libel laws must take into account how responsibly or irresponsibly the media behave in relation to private citizens who do not deserve to have their photographs, homes or details of their personal lives sprawled across the newspapers with all sorts of innuendo. While those of us in public life put our heads above the parapet and we take what we get, people in private life do not deserve to be dragged through the media. I thank Senator Manning and other Senators for raising that important point.

We have come to the end of an era. Now that the regulations will be brought in, I have finished one phase of my life, one in which I learned a lot about the legislative process. At times I found it a tedious, frustrating and slow business, but I also found it a worth-while exercise and learning experience. I was supported by excellent officials in the Office of the Tánaiste. The Act is now the property of the Houses of the Oireachtas. Although my office no longer has a statutory function, it will give any assistance or advice to the Select Committee or to the commission.

I thank Senators who contributed to the debate on the Act and on this order. It was helpful and fruitful and done in an open spirit. I thank the civil servants who prepared the Act and the draftsperson, whose Victorian English I might have railed against from time to time. However, Laney Bacon did a smashing job. I hope that in practice the Act will do what we aimed for in theory, that it will promote respect for people in public life by separating the myth from the reality, which will be on record, and that the public will be able to trust those of us engaged in public business to keep our public duties and our private business interests separate.

Question put and agreed to.

Sitting suspended at 4.25 p.m. and resumed at 6 p.m.