I move amendment No. 29:
In page 16, subsection (1), line 42, to delete "writing" and substitute "writing,".
This amendment seeks to delete a comma.
SECTION 13.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 30 has already been discussed with amendment No. 15.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 17, lines 8 to 11, to delete subsection (2).
The effect of this amendment would be to delete subsection (2) of section 13. Subsection (2) stipulates that
It shall not be necessary to specify in a statement under subsection (1) the amount or monetary value of any additional interest or the remuneration of any trade, profession, employment, vocation or other occupation included in the statement.
What we are talking about here are statements.
The Deputy is slightly out of order because this amendment has already been discussed with amendment No. 15. If he wishes to address the issue in the debate on section 13 he may do so, but not as a specific amendment.
I thought I had raised it under the point of quantum and I wanted to hear the Minister's reply. The point made to her was not that it was seeking to stipulate——
I have no problem if the Deputy wishes to raise his point in the debate on the section, but not on the specific amendment which has been discussed. It would be more appropriate to deal with the issue when the section is being debated.
I accept the Chair's ruling.
Is amendment No. 30 in the name of Deputy Rabbitte, being withdrawn?
Can we hear the Minister on it?
You can hear her at the conclusion of the debate on the section. Is the amendment being withdrawn?
No.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 31 has already been discussed with amendment No. 12.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 17, subsection (5), line 24, after "holder in" to insert "or in relation to".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 17, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following subsection:
"(6) The Clerk shall, within 60 days after each registration date or as soon as may be thereafter, furnish to the Commission and cause to be laid before Dáil Éireann and published in Iris Oifigiúil a copy of each statement received by him under this section.”.
I was about to comment on section 13, Chairman.
There is no problem, once the Deputy moved his amendment.
In a way, this refers to the amendment we have disposed of relating to the question of quantum. I have consistently made the argument, which I do not wish to labour now, that there ought to be some distinction drawn between ordinary Members of this House and office holders. There ought to be some provision to make manifest a distinction between a nominal interest and a substantial one. I gave examples in previous debates of the distinction between a nominal interest and a substantial one and I am not seeking a repeat. However, there ought to be some provision which clearly shows whether someone has a substantial material interest giving rise to a potential conflict of interest or an almost accidental nominal interest.
I cannot see any provision — again, the Minister may be able to point one out to me — for an office holder to publish the statement of details to which my amendment refers. It ought to be published within 60 days in Iris Oifigiúilso that there will be the transparency for which the Minister has argued. It should be evident in the case of the imposition which is on the office holder by the relevant Schedule that that is published in Iris Oifigiúil in full.
We have been debating this Bill for such a considerable period — since before the summer recess — that I sometimes forget the context in which certain matters were raised. However, if I remember correctly, this discussion particularly related to building societies and so on, where someone could have a very small interest in a building society and someone else could have a very substantial one. A number of Deputies contributed to that discussion.
Over the summer, people who had mortgages with one of the building societies, and, presumably, never thought they would ever have shares in it, suddenly found that they had up to 300 shares because of the intention of that building society to go public. Therefore, there are people with an air of great importance because they now, perhaps for the first time in their lives, have shares in something. I know that some of those people feel important because it is their first time and it does not relate very much to the value of their shares. However, there are others who have very substantial interests and I do not see why the two should be taken as one. There should be some distinction between those two categories. To that extent, I find myself in agreement with Deputy Rabbitte and I hope that the Minister will tell us what distinction will be made.
I gather we disposed of the amendment which dealt with amounts. When we discussed it the last day I indicated I had some sympathy with the view that there could be banding where we could look at the difference between somebody who has £10,001 worth of shares in an enterprise and somebody with £100,000 worth of shares. I am sympathetic to that viewpoint as expressed by Deputy Rabbitte and I said that I would have a look at it. We have looked at the point which Deputy Currie made in relation to building society deposits becoming shares overnight and I think we will be able to produce on Report Stage something which will meet the committee's concerns.
Amendment No. 32 requires disclosure of what section 13 terms additional interests, which are the interests of spouses and children. In framing the Bill we were at pains to strike a reasonable balance between the public interest and the public need to know, to ensure that the private and public interests of people in public life were kept separate and to ensure the legitimate privacy of third parties who are not themselves in public life. This amendment would require publication of the interests of spouses and children. Some members of this committee, notably Deputy Connolly, expressed very colourfully the view that we should not publish the interests of spouses and children. That is a reasonable point because people who do not enter public life should not be required to publish their interests.
We are requiring, under amendment No. 33, that office holders would make a declaration to the commission or the Taoiseach listing those interests of persons connected with them, so far as they were aware of them, which would have a bearing on their functions and could materially influence them. That is reasonable so as to ensure that there is a safeguard against any office holder enriching members of their family through their actions. We provide those safeguards fairly carefully in the Bill. However, I do not think it is reasonable to require persons who are not in public life to publish their interests, which would be the effect of amendment No. 32.
The Minister is quite right in interpreting the effect of my amendment and in saying that a question of privacy and equality arises in terms of one's spouse, what ought to be on the public record and what ought not be accessible to the public. I am persuaded of that argument as it relates to Members of the House. However, I am not persuaded of it as it relates to Ministers or office holders.
Whereas it may be going too far to describe as a fiction the facility with which Members of the House divest themselves overnight and for a temporary period of their material interests while they are serving officer holders, it is little more than that in effect. Members of the House who become Ministers sever their connection with their company or whatever for a temporary period. It is no more than a temporary little arrangement. They resume their full interest in that business immediately on ceasing to be office holders.
We had a particularly glaring example of this in the last term of the Dáil where the Taoiseach argued that he has no connection with his family business. However, a decision was made by his Cabinet which conferred a very definite benefit on the family business in which the Taoiseach is the major stakeholder. That can be repeated very many times. As this Bill stands, we would still not know about that material interest and the same potential conflict of interest could arise again.
Therefore, there is a qualitative distinction to be drawn between Members of the House and office holders. Where office holders are in a position to confer a benefit, either directly on their family business or through the stratagem of a fellow office holder making the decision which confers that benefit, that ought to be above board, known and accessible to the public. I accept the Minister's argument in terms of the right of privacy of spouses as it relates to Members of the House. However, with regard to anybody aspiring to ministerial office or anybody described in the Bill as an office holder, if they have temporarily shed themselves of a very substantial interest in a major company or whatever, it is fair that that ought to be known. In his case, the Taoiseach's argument in reply to a parliamentary question was that everybody knows about it. If everybody knows it, why cannot it be listed in Iris Oifigiúil? Other substantial business persons likely to aspire to ministerial office would probably make the same argument that everybody knows about it because it is a small country. If that is the case it ought to be regulated and provided for in the Bill.
Is the amendment being pressed? The Minister has replied.
This is a most unusual procedure. We would not deal with it so peremptorily or dismissively if we were in the Dáil Chamber. The purpose of the committees is to enable us to tease out these matters in detail. This is important; it goes to the heart of the Bill. I wish to hear the Minister's further comments.
I accept Deputy Rabbitte's concern that it should be a matter of public record if somebody temporarily divests themselves of property but effectively maintains control. This is provided in the definition section. If somebody artificially transfers property into another's name, it shall be deemed to be the party of the first person for the purpose of the Bill. I will examine that definition again to see if it can be tightened up and made watertight. This refers to the definition of ownership of property for the purposes of the capital tax Acts, which deal with artificially transferring property into another's name.
Information under section 13 will also be available to the commission and the Taoiseach. Under section 26 the commission will be able to inquire further into any of these matters and to make reports to the House if it considers it necessary. If the commission suspects that any funny business is going on, it overrides the normal right to privacy of the third parties and will report to the House. I accept the points made by Deputy Rabbitte and I have covered them in the definition section.
I cannot accept that the Minister has so provided in the definition section. I am not talking about where an office holder or a Minister has artificially divested themselves temporarily of their property. I am talking about the normal arrangement that applies. I do not wish to personalise the point or refer to serving Members of the House but we are all familiar with the practice. A number of prominent Members of the Government, including members of the Minister's party, have temporarily severed their formal relationship with their company. It does not necessarily prevent them calling into the head office of the company frequently and they are entitled to do so.
I am not talking about an artificial situation, rather the normal procedure which is that a person, once they no longer hold office, resumes their normal relationship with their company. For example, if I own land in Dublin city or any other urban area of Ireland, it is easy to envisage a situation in which I benefit from a decision by a Cabinet colleague, such as the Minister for the Environment under the urban renewal legislation. If a decision was made to select a given area for the purposes of the extensive advantages conferred by this legislation, I would benefit substantially after I no longer held office.
This is a practical example that could involve any number of Members of the House who are land holders in urban areas and that land is designated during the period in which the person held office. A substantial benefit is conferred as a result of a decision by a Cabinet colleague, which can be fully enjoyed by the landholder after he or she ceases to be an office holder.
The Minister's definition section about artificially divesting does not cover that position. There is nothing artificial about it. There are procedures whereby Ministers are expected to severe their links with companies on coming into office. It is a normal procedure that they resume their relationship afterwards. They can continue to be the majority stakeholder even while serving as a Minister. The amendment would merely require the interest to be stated in Iris Oifigiúil, which is reasonable. It would be evident and accessible for all. Most importantly, it would draw a distinction between office holders, who are in a position to make decisions that confer enormous benefits, and Members of the House who would have more capacity to make such decisions as members of local authorities than as Government backbenchers or Opposition Deputies.
The definition section as it stands covers Deputy Rabbitte's case. It would require disclosure by the office holder concerned. There is no need for the amendment, which would have the unintended effect of requiring disclosure by spouses and children.
Is amendment No. 32 being pressed?
It took the Minister up to 14 months to put the Bill before the House. She appears extraordinarily reluctant to take a single amendment on board since Committee Stage started. I can only speculate as to why. I presume it is the end product of bartering between the two parties. If this is the case, my sympathy is with the Minister but the Bill is inferior as a result. As we do not have a majority of the House, I have little choice but to press my amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 13, as amended, agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 34 to 37, inclusive, are alternative to amendment No. 33, which is a new section, while amendments Nos. 38 and 45 are related. Amendments Nos. 33 to 38, inclusive, and amendment No. 45 can be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 17, before section 14, to insert the following new section:
14. (1) An office holder who proposes to perform a function of his or her office and who has actual knowledge that—
(a) he or she or a connected person or another office holder, or
(b) a person who is specified in a statement under subsection (2) furnished to the office holder by another office holder and who is, in relation to that other office holder, a connected person,
has a material interest in a matter to which the function relates shall, before or, if that is not reasonably practicable, as soon as may be after such performance, prepare and furnish—
(i) in the case of the Taoiseach, to the chairman of the Commission,
(ii) in the case of any other Minister of the Government or a Minister of State, to the Taoiseach and the Commission, and
(iii) in the case of any other office holder, to the Commission, a statement in writing of those facts and of the nature of the interest.
(2) Where an office holder or a person acting on behalf of an office holder proposes to make a request to another office holder ('the second holder') in relation to the performance of a function by the second holder and the office holder by or on whose behalf the request is made ('the first holder') has actual knowledge that he or she or a connected person has a material interest in a matter to which the function relates, the first holder shall, before or at the time of the making of the request, furnish to the second holder a statement in writing of those facts and of the nature of the interest.
(3) References in this section to the performance of a function of the office of an office holder are references to the performance of the function by the office holder personally or by another person in pursuance of a direction given to the person by the office holder personally or by a person acting on behalf of and with the actual knowledge of the office holder.
Amendment No. 33 is designed to meet certain concerns expressed by Deputies from both sides of the House on Second Stage. It provides in subsection (1) that not alone does a Minister, for example, have to disclose a personal material interest in a matter or that of a connected person as originally envisaged in the Bill as published, but that he or she must also disclose any material interest of another office holder of which he or she has actual knowledge. That subsection also amendments the original reporting requirement since statements made by Ministers and Ministers of State go not only to the Taoiseach as originally proposed, but also to the independent commission.
There is in addition a new provision in subsection (2) whereby an office holder who requests another directly or through a third party to perform a function in which the requester or a connected person has a material interest must disclose that interest. There is also a drafting change in that the definition of material interest previously contained in subsection (14) (2) is now contained in section 2 (3) as amended on Committee Stage.
In addition to these changes consideration has been given in the light of the discussion on Committee Stage to amending, along the lines suggested by certain Deputies, the test of actual knowledge. We will come back on Report Stage with new wording on that. These and proposed changes are testament of the commitment given that the Bill will be fine tuned where necessary to make it more effective and workable where possible.
This amendment was born out of the controversy which arose from the passports issue. Through a horrible coincidence of timing, the Bill was published at the time that controversy broke. It was found that the Bill after its long gestation period made no provision to cope with a situation where one Minister made a decision which conferred a substantial benefit on another Minister's interests, family or related interests. The Minister promised to bring forward an amendment which would provide for that situation which is essentially amendment No. 33, although as the Chairman said, there are alternative amendments, including amendment No. 34 in the name of Deputy Michael McDowell.
Notwithstanding the Minister's good intentions in the matter, it must be noted that the Bill, which was published after a long period, is feeble on this issue. This is an area of the most blatant potential conflict of interest whereby it is possible for a Cabinet colleague to make a decision which has the effect of conferring significant benefit on the business of the family of another Cabinet colleague. I do not know if the Minister's amendment — she has not taken too much time to explain this — closes off that situation. It is an improvement inasmuch as it requires this procedure to be followed where another office holder — or someone connected to that office holder — has that material interest.
The level of knowledge required seems to be such that it would be possible in almost any set of circumstances to avoid it. A level of actual knowledge, as defined presumably in the definition section, is required. If one looks at Deputy McDowell's amendment No. 34, it includes the term "actual knowledge" but it also states: "or has any reasonable ground to believe or suspect that he or she or any other office holder or any connected person with an office holder has a material interest in a matter to which the function relates".
I would like to hear the Minister's view on that point and whether she considers her more rigid and strict requirement in terms of actual knowledge can provide against the situation which we have already seen happen or which could happen in the future or where somebody could plead that they did not know that their Cabinet colleague had any such interest or that any person connected to him had any such interest. It seems sufficient to plead that one did not have actual knowledge.
A second point concerning the Minister's amendment relates to the imposition in the case of the Taoiseach to inform the chairman of the commission. Is that done in private? Will the regime applying to office holders be transparent or accessible to the public? Will we be aware that such communication has taken place between the Taoiseach and the chairman of the commission?
I already said that we look again at the definition of actual knowledge because I accept many of the points made on Committee Stage. We need a reasonable test on this which everybody understands and which is workable. I envisage, for example, that Ministers will normally be expected to know the interests of their fellow office holders as in the public register of interests and that when this Bill is enacted, it will be a matter of routine for any Minister, before engaging in any function of his or her office, to check if there is a registered interest of any fellow office holder involved and, if there is, that the declarations would follow as a matter of course.
It imposes an administrative obligation but it is one which this House and committee would wish to see to avoid the type of situation which exercised all our minds this summer. This amendment will provide for a reasonable definition and it will ensure that if a Minister is doing something which will benefit a fellow office holder, it will be a matter of record and will go to the commission and if it wishes to report on anything, it may do so under section 26.
What about the transparency question which I raised?
In any of these cases statements will go to the commission. If the commission believes there is something which it should report to the House it will do so and that power is conferred on it under section 26.
I take it that whatever transpires between the Taoiseach and the chairman of the commission is a private transaction. It seems, at least partially — without overstating it — to defeat the purpose of the Bill in that statements required from office holders have this protection and each time one looks at a different section of the Bill there are reasons for protecting spouses in that we will not require them to make a statement in Iris Oifigiúil and that whatever transpires between the Taoiseach of the day and the chairman of the commission does so privately. In the case before us we have been unable to establish whether the Taoiseach of the day advised his Cabinet colleagues that he had such an interest and we will not be any wiser after this Bill is passed. I am unhappy with the Minister’s response on that aspect.
The commission is the guardian of the public interest. It is composed of people who are demonstrably independent, who under our Bill are statutorily independent in the performance of their functions. A commission composed of constitutional officers such as the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Ombudsman, the Clerks of the Houses of the Oireachtas and the Ceann Comhairle is the guardian of the public interest. If there is any matter on which the commission feels it is fit and appropriate to report to the appropriate House the commission will do so. Furthermore, the Bill provides that statements made to the commission cannot be destroyed for a minimum period of 15 years so they will be available for successors to see. We have safeguarded the position well. I hope that the effect of section 33 will be to give pause to any Minister before acting in any case where there is or could be a potential conflict of interests.
How many years before the records of statements made may be destroyed?
A minimum of 15 years.
Does this mean that by the time the historians of the future are given access to the papers they may already have been destroyed?
If Deputy Rabbitte puts down an amendment to propose a 30 year rule I will be very happy to look at it, but as it stands these statements have to be kept for a minimum of 15 years.
I am interested in politics at the moment rather than history but I will look at the historical aspect afterwards. Do I understand the Minister to say she is prepared to look at enshrining in the legislation the more customary objective test, where there is cause to believe on reasonable grounds, or, where it is suspected that such an interest exists? This amendment has been given rise to by extraordinary circumstances and exposes the difficulty of legislating for this kind of thing. The Minister has said on a number of occasions that one cannot envisage every circumstance and I accept that, but we have had experience of this one.
The more one thinks about it the more one recognises that there is an obvious area of potential conflict of interest where I can cause a Cabinet colleague to make a decision that will benefit me in the future. That is the most simple and straightforward situation. I instance the case, for example, of using the legislation on urban renewal to confer enormous benefit on myself in the future. The fact that I may have divested myself temporarily of property and conferred it on my spouse does not change that situation.
I would certainly be reassured if there was an objective test because I cannot see how it would be possible to argue with any office holder who goes before the commission and says that he or she did not have actual knowledge, that they could not have had actual knowledge. In that situation the commission could not reasonably continue to hear the allegations if section 14 (1) reads that the person concerned has to have actual knowledge. The section states: "An office holder who proposes to perform a function of his or her office and who has actual knowledge that..." Let us be reasonable. In discharging his functions, the furthest thing from the mind of the Minister for Health may be that a decision, for example to build a new health board headquarters, would confer a significant benefit on his Cabinet colleague because that colleague happens to own the land or whatever. It would be quite reasonable for a Minister to say that he or she did not have any actual knowledge of that situation, that he or she was merely doing his or her job. The benefit conferred could emerge subsequently.
In the case of the passports affair, it only emerged because of the extraordinary stratagem resorted to by Deputy McDowell of introducing a Bill with my co-operation. Some objective standard is required based on well established legal principles of reasonable grounds for knowledge rather than direct actual personal knowledge which is the definition in this section of the Bill.
We have looked again at the test of actual knowledge and I accept many of the points the Deputy is making. We will be looking at a definition on Report Stage along the lines of reasonable grounds. We will not use the word "suspicions" as in the McDowell amendment but we will look at using the words "reasonable grounds". As I have said a number of times to the committee, I would expect that any Minister in operating this new amended section would, before he or she engages in any function of their office, check through the published register of other office holders' interests. That would be the minimum reasonable test that the commission would expect of them.
Before engaging in any function of their office, for instance deciding to build a hospital on a particular piece of land, a Minister would have an obligation under this section to check whether the land belonged to a fellow office holder or whether the contractor was a fellow office holder and so on. It will involve an administrative burden on office holders and Ministers but it is a burden which quite rightly this House would want to see placed so that we do not have a suspicion of conflict of interests arising in these cases. This is a strong amendment and it will give a very clear protection to the public interest.
I do not wish to interfere in this Bill, although it has special appeal for me. In regard to all these definitions of a connected person, what about the person who has been involved in the party for many years and has benefited? It is said that if a person is not a member of Fianna Fáil for many years that person gets nothing. What is to make a Minister have high moral standards if he wants to go outside the definitions? Many people get benefits and others might regard it as unethical. Can we force even a Taoiseach and a Tánaiste to behave according to standards that would be regarded as ethical if they get carried away? These definitions cannot cover everything. That is my whole worry about this Bill. How is it possible to impose ethics on people if they do not want them imposed? It is possible to define certain sections and name certain people but it is not possible to name everybody.
The Deputy has made a fair point. That is why they are not in the Bill.
May I ask the Minister about programme managers who have come in for such very unfair attention in recent days?
Unfair?
People have been singled out for criticism by Members of the House who would not be here in the first place without their assistance. It is a bit unfair. However, I am sure they will defend themselves. May I ask the Minister whether she sees her amendment encompassing the role of programme managers? Subsections 2 and 3 of her amendment seem to cover a situation where somebody is acting on behalf of the office holder and the circumstance where an office holder contrives to get someone to make the request for him or to cause a decision to be brought about without his ever picking up the telephone to his colleague. Is that situation encompassed adequately in subsections 2 and 3 of the Minister's amendment?
Would the Minister give any quarter to the inferior level of knowledge of the Opposition in progressing this Bill by explaining in more detail, and in terms that I can understand, why she is so confident that it so encompasses programme managers?
It could not only be programme managers; it could be a private secretary or anybody acting on behalf of a Minister. Its purpose is to close off the obvious loophole which I am sure the Deputy was as concerned with as myself in formulating this amendment.
The last thing I wish to do is to give offence to the Minister, but she has an unusual approach to legislation which is based on the principle that when she decides it is so, it is manifestly so, and——
That is the benefit of power, Deputy.
——if anybody should question it, or should seek elucidation they are somehow dim-witted.
I would never suggest that the Deputy is dim-witted.
The Minister advises that it is encompassed.
It encompasses a person acting on behalf of an office holder, and this could be any person acting on behalf of the office holder. It could be a private secretary, a programme manager or a civil servant.
The reason for this section is to avoid situations where a Minister is hiding behind the shield of not making inquiries himself, but getting his minions to inquire on his behalf. The section addresses the Deputy's concern to ensure that loopholes of this kind would not be created and its wording was carefully thought out to meet the Deputy's concerns in advance of him articulating them.
The Minister's assurance on the record is important because there has been direct evidence of situations where Ministers can advise the House with their hand on their heart that they were not contacted over a given matter, and that the Taoiseach or a Minister did not make representations to them on such matters. It is important that there is a protection against these situations because in such instances the Minister is, strictly speaking, telling the truth to the House that no representations were made to him or her by a Cabinet colleague. However, in such instances representations were made on behalf of the Cabinet colleague by somebody else, producing the same effect and the same potential for a conflict of interest. It is, therefore, important that the Minister's assurance on this issue is on the record.
Will the Minister comment on amendment No. 38, in my name?
It was agreed at the outset that this group of amendments would be taken together.
Amendment No. 38 requires that the Commission:
shall, within 30 days of the receipt of each statement received under this section, cause each statement to be laid before Dáil Éireann and published in Iris Oifigiúil.
Amendment 34, in the name of Deputy McDowell, states:
(2) The Commission shall cause any statement furnished under subsection (1) to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas not later than 14 days after it has been furnished to the Commission.
Will the Minister comment on the points raised by these requirements?
The requirement of 14 days could weaken the section, because it is envisaged that Ministers will advise the Commission and the Taoiseach, ideally before performing, or immediately afterwards. If the requirement of 14 days were to become standard practice there would be many more cases of people acting where there was a conflict of interest and the purpose of the section is to ensure that, as far as possible, a situation is avoided where people act on such a conflict.
The laying of statements by the Commission before the Dáil, or publication of them in Iris Oifigiúil, as proposed in amendment No. 38 in the name of Deputy Rabbitte, is unnecessary. The Commission will receive all statements, will be the guarantor of the public interest and will be able to report any concerns it may have regarding any conflict of interest to the Houses of the Oireachtas.
Again, the unusual situation has arisen where the Minister, who has advised that the cornerstone for her advancing this legislation is the necessity for transparency, is, at the same time, prepared to go to extraordinary lengths not to have statements published in Iris Oifigiúil, which would be the usual procedure in situations of this kind. This is probably the result of bartering between the two parties in Government.
I do not seek to cast any aspersions on the eminent persons who comprise the Commission, but all wisdom is reposed in them, and the committee is to accept their assessments but is not given any idea of what matters are involved. Matters will only be published or laid before the House in the event of the Commission considering that there is a conflict of interest. In addition, there is no spouses connection or dimension of equality to this provision. In view of this, why is there a reluctance to publish in Iris Oifigiúil?
By way of example, I envisage this section operating in practise as follows: If Minister A proposes to carry out a function of office and discovers that Minister B has an interest in the function, then, in the normal course of events, unless there is a compelling reason, they will not act in such a case where there is a conflict of interest and they will need to have clear and cogent reasons that they would be able to satisfy the Taoiseach who appoints them, the Commission and, ultimately, the general public.
In most cases people may contemplate an action and then, on fulfilling the requirements of this section, withdraw from the action. If one was to start publishing all those contemplated, but not acted upon intentions, Iris Oifigiúilwould contain much routine business which was not proceeded with.
The Commission is independent, those involved in it are of the highest standing and the Bill confers a statutory independence on them in the performance of their functions. If there is any matter on which the Commission has any grounds to believe that there would be public concern it would bring it to the attention of the Oireachtas, as the guarantor of the public interest under section 26 of the Bill, and if a member of the public or a Member of the Oirechtas has not already called an investigation into the matter or if the matter has not already been investigated.
Under section 26, the Commission can report on any matter on which it considers that there is a public interest and this will provide the kind of safeguards the Deputy is seeking, without inserting routine matters which will not have been proceeded with because of a conflict of interest. These will allay public concerns without raising hares over matters which have not or would not take place.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Would the provision of subsection (2) of amendment No. 34 in the name of Deputy McDowell not be of help? The Commission will be composed of able and prominent people, but local knowledge often makes a big difference. For example, if the Minister decided to build a lighthouse on top of Mount Leinster, it may be that a vigilant Deputy from County Wexford or County Carlow would have local knowledge which he could link up with activities taking place at that level. In such instances, the Commission would not have any idea of what was happening at ground level and the provision of subsection (2) of this amendment would be helpful in preventing certain activities.
On the provision requiring the Minister to advise the Taoiseach, it may be that the Minister could owe the Minister a favour from the past and it may not be as easy for him to see something wrong when there may be a mote in his own eye.
This is a new section?
Yes.
Does the Minister of State consider that her insertion of the term "Minister of State" covers the same range my amendment sought to cover?
"Office holder" covers Ministers and Ministers of State and can be extended to include to the chairpersons of committees.
I am in trouble.
Amendment No. 33 agreed to.
Section 14 deleted.
Amendments Nos. 34 to 38, inclusive, not moved.