Will the Minister explain the meaning of this section?
SECTION 36.
Question proposed: "That section 36 stand part of the Bill."
The Prevention of Corruption Acts, 1889 to 1916 are Victorian legislation. When we examined them we found some loopholes on how the modern State is organised. It was not 100 per cent clear whether they applied to semi-State companies as we know them or how they applied to office holders and so on. We took the opportunity to ensure that these people would be covered and to clarify the position under the Acts. We have also taken the opportunity to update the penalties under the Acts. The maximum fine for serious corruption was £500 in 1916 terms and we have upgraded the penalties.
Subsection (2) provides for a fine of £50,000 or seven years in prison. What is that based on?
It is based on the monetary values in place at the time and upgrading them to today's monetary values. The sum of £500 in 1916 would not be far short of £50,000 today.
What about the prison term?
The prison term was in the old Act.
Was it the same term?
Yes.
I gather from the Minister that section 36 brings the old laws up to date. The opportunity is being taken to update the penalties under the corruption Acts.
Generally, the Bill deals with conflicts of interest and trying to avoid conflicts of interest. The most serious conflict of interest one could have is the subject matter of the 1889 to 1916 Acts. We, therefore, believed it appropriate that the upgrading of those Acts would form part of this Bill.
The old Act does not envisage the involvement of public servants. This section now includes office holders and special advisers. If a committee of inquiry found against a person and the House imposed a sanction, for example, suspension of the Member for a month without pay, the House and the Members would have dealt with that person. It would not stop the gardaí arresting that person, having him or her charged under certain sections of the Prevention of Corruption Acts and fined or imprisoned. Is that correct?
If the gardaí suspected someone was guilty of a criminal offence under those Acts, it would be open to the gardaí to arrest the person. The DPP would decide whether a prosecution was warranted and the courts would, ultimately, make a decision. It is possible that wrong-doing on that scale could be uncovered in the course of an investigation. We have provided that the commission or the committee could refer an issue to the DPP if they come across something criminal in nature. We want to ensure that the penalties imposed on somebody who has seriously gone off the rails in this manner, for example, in relation to a semi-State company, would fit the Crime.
Question put and agreed to.
FIRST SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 81:
In page 41, paragraph 1 (1), line 5, to delete "State," and substitute "State".
Is that a drafting amendment, Minister?
Yes.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 82:
In page 41, paragraph 2 (2), line 42, after "subsidiary" to insert "(within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1963)".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the First Schedule, as amended, be the First Schedule to the Bill".
What is the purpose of the First Schedule which refers to public bodies?
The purpose of the First Schedule is so that officers of public bodies or State companies can be designated, under the Bill, as senior executives or senior civil servants? This Schedule lists the bodies in which people can be designated.
Also the employments for which the Minister for Finance can designate office holders, is that correct?
Yes.
Question put and agreed to.
SECOND SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 82a:
In page 42, paragraph 1, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:
"(1) membership of organisations seeking changes in ‘social' legislation.".
The Minister in his Second Stage speech said:
In essence the legislation asks politicians to declare those interests which could potentially influence their decisions.
The entire Bill seems to be about income, shareholdings, directorships, property, land, gifts etc. These might be called material items. The Title of the Bill, however, is Ethics in Public Office Bill. There was a discussion some months ago that, perhaps, it should have been called the Declaration of Interests Bill. Surely ethics means more than declaring material possessions? If politicians are to declare interests which could potentially influence their decisions then this should be extended to their views and membership of organisations. I accept that the amendment is slanted in a particular direction but it could be broadened. I do not know what is next on the menu.
Membership of the GAA.
Or, perhaps, membership of a ladies' club. On what is called the social agenda, I do not know what is next now that homosexuality has been decriminalised and we have abortion assistance,——
The Deputy should try to stay with the amendment.
——referral or whatever one calls it; perhaps it is euthanasia. If there ever was or is an association such as the Irish Euthanasia Society it would be important to know — in the context of the Bill — if an office holder was a member of such an organisation. Since the Minister used the word ethics in the title of the Bill, it seems that she was thinking further than directorships, property etc. Politicians who are members of organisations——
Or Opus Dei.
Yes. Memberships of organisations, particularly ones whose express policy and purpose is to change the social habits and ethos of society, should be made known. It is more important that such information be made public than that a person has shares worth £10,000 in a large company. Such a shareholding would not give that person any influence in company decisions.
When the sub-committee of the Select Committee on Legislation and Security met in January of this year such information seemed important to those asking the questions. Witnesses before that sub-committee were asked if they were members of the Knights of Columbanus or Opus Dei. I waited for someone to be asked if they attended Mass on Sunday, were a member of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul or the Catholic Church. Now it seems to be the case that if people admit to membership of certain organisations they are labelled as right-wing fundamentalists. However, if they claimed membership of International Planned Parenthood they would probably be lionised by the media and given free publicity for several years.
The Deputy has a persecution complex.
In January, Members of the Oireachtas asked those questions at the sub-committee. They must have felt that the issue was relevant. Therefore, should it not be enshrined in the legislation? The wording of the amendment may not be great and it is slanted in a particular direction. It would be fair and reasonable, however, to include such a clause to refer to both extremes of the spectrum, be it Opus Dei or International Planned Parenthood. I ask the Minister to consider this for Report Stage. The Minister may ask where does she draw the line, that it is impossible to do so. If it is impossible perhaps we should include the GAA, ladies clubs etc. If office holders have to declare that they have shares in a public company why should they not declare other interests? It would not do any harm. A similar amendment was tabled last year by Deputy Currie and has been withdrawn. The principle of that amendment was the same but, perhaps, not as slanted as mine. I am putting the amendment forward for consideration because the deliberations of the sub-committee in January show that people feel that such information can, on occasion, be relevant. I rest my case.
This issue was considered when the Bill was drafted. I know Deputy Ahern had trouble drafting his amendment. Deputy Currie's amendment, which referred to publicising secretive organisations, was also aimed at obtaining the same information. It is very hard to draft such legislation. What is a secretive organisation? I have some sympathy with the point being made. If people are members of organisations which are not widely known or that prefer secrecy, I believe the public should know. It serves no particular purpose to list membership of a ladies club or that a person is a patron of the local musical society. If every Member had to make that kind of listing doubtless breaches would occur because people would leave some information out.
The issue was looked at but in drafting terms it was not possible to come up with anything that would be sensible with regard to the way Members of this House — or members of other organisations — are expected to subscribe to different bodies in their constituencies. Again, it is not fair to put people on the spot with regard to the church they attend. That is not reasonable with the way people live today. In the Second Schedule there is a provision which states:
(9) any other interest of the person concerned during the appropriate period aforesaid which could have materially influenced the person in the performance of his or her functions as a member, office holder, holder of a designated directorship, occupier of a designated position or special adviser . . .
That covers the point. If a person is a member of an organisation where that membership is influencing what they do, the issue could be covered under that provision.
I am disappointed with the Minister's reply. Every organisation of which we are members must directly or indirectly influence our thinking in some way or other. I consider that if I were a member of such an organisation it would be more relevant than having shares worth £10,000 in a public company. The Bill is exhaustive in many ways and covers an area demanded by the public. However, it leaves aside another area which could influence people's thinking and decisions.
Most politicians include all the organisations of which they are members in their election literature.
Some of us probably disagree with Deputy Noel Ahern and his views on aspects of social legislation. It is, however, fair to defend his right to such views and to seek to see the merits of his proposal. I would like to think I was a liberal long before I come into politics; I knew the Minister of State when we were in college, but a peculiar definition of Irish liberalism has developed. Now if one only agrees with a certain idea of the so-called liberal agenda one is deemed a liberal. The true definition of liberalism is that one recognises all opposing viewpoints and Deputy Noel Ahern is trying to ensure that is recognised.
In the debate on the so-called liberal agenda the liberals and the liberal press pillory those who do not agree with their idea of liberalism. The definition of liberalism is that one recognises the viewpoints of others. Deputy Noel Ahern is correct in that it is a view of a certain segment of Irish political life that the only concern about ethics in politics is about money. It seems to be a peculiar obsession of certain people in the political community — in some parties more than others.
I agree with Deputy Noel Ahern that a person's membership of other organisations is probably more relevant to ethics, in its true sense. I might disagree with Deputy Noel Ahern about matters on which our views are well known, but I defend his right to express his views. I have always defended that right.
There is merit in Deputy Noel Ahern's point. I accept what the Minister of State said; it would be difficult to draw up an amendment to cover those matters. The Deputy is correct in saying that it has more relevance to ethics than a member having a few pounds or shares in a large company.
Perhaps the Minister of State would have another look at it to see what might be done.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 83:
In page 44, lines 39 to 48, to delete paragraph 2 and substitute the following:
"2. (1) In paragraph 1 (2), ‘holding' does not include money in a current, deposit or other similar account with a financial institution.
(2) In paragraph 1 (3), ‘shadow directorship' means the position held by a person who is a shadow director within the meaning of the Companies Acts, 1963 to 1990, or, in the case of a public body that is not a company (within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1963) and is specified in subparagraph (8), (9), (10), (11) or (12), or stands prescribed for the purposes of subparagraph (13), of paragraph 1 of the First Schedule, the position held by a person in accordance with whose instructions or directions the the members of the body or the members of the board or other body that controls, manages or administers that body are accustomed to act.".
The purpose of this amendment is to clarify paragraph (1) (2) which relates to shareholdings, that it does not apply to money held in a bank on deposit or in a current account.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Second Schedule, as amended, be the Second Schedule to the Bill."
Will new Members and people in semi-State companies have to disclose the amount of income, the number of shares they hold and the amount of money they have in bonds, or is it only if it is in excess of the threshold in the guidelines one has to disclose an interest in a company or in land but not the actual amount?
The Bill makes express provision that the amounts do not have to be disclosed. It only applies to disclosing that one has property which is over the disclosure threshold.
I raised this point last year and there was a strong view across the political divide on that point. I thank the Minister of State for making the necessary amendment.
A wide variety of financial products is now available. Every day newspapers advertise all types of investment products. In the old days we did not have these sophisticated financial instruments; we had shares, debentures and bonds. There is now such a wide variety that I do not know how one would classify them.
The Bill refers to shares, bonds, debentures and similar investments to a value in excess of £10,000. If a person had a life assurance policy or another similar financial product they had been paying into, the value of which would be greater than that on death or through savings, does one have to declare that?
No. Life assurance is not covered in this Schedule.
It may not just be life assurance. One could take out an investment with nil life cover and with a savings element. As far as I understand the Bill they would have to be disclosed.
Amendment No. 83 makes it clear that we are not covering anything like deposits, current accounts or money in a bank or building society. We are covering the case where the person concerned has a financial interest in the health of a particular company, which is not the case with money in the bank. With more and more sophisticated financial products coming on the market — as an accountant Deputy McCreevy would know more about them than I; I only heard of derivatives in the last few weeks — in the case of any doubt there are guidelines and advice available.
We intend to be clear that if one holds shares or debentures, or if one has an interest in the health of a specific company it is covered.
I take the Minister's point, but it will meet some difficulties in this regard. What if one has an office holder, for example, the Minister for Finance — God forbid that this should ever come about — and they had some savings certificates, it would be very relevant to him if he changed interest rates savings certificates from 6 per cent to 7 per cent or back to 5 per cent; he would clearly have a financial interest. Most Ministers for Finance have some savings certificates; maybe they are for their children. Where would the Minister draw the line?
If a Minister is contemplating doing anything in which he or she may have a financial interest, they are obliged to make a declaration of that fact to the Taoiseach and the commission, which provides a safeguard. However, in the normal course of events, I would see savings certificates as being similar to savings accounts in the bank which are covered by the amendment we have just made.
However, I have been in Government when the Minister for Finance would not make anybody aware, including members of the Government, about any changes he would make because of the need for secrecy. He would not ask somebody if they should disclose this interest because then he would give it away. With all due respect, these guidelines will have to be made clearer because some areas may be open to dispute.
There will also be a need for new guidelines, as new and more sophisticated financial products become available. I started off my savings life with £10 in a post office account, and, financially, life has become more facilitating. If new products come on the market, guidelines can be drawn up to meet those circumstances.
About the £500 limit on gifts, getting china or cut glass as a gift from a golf club was referred to the last day. Is there any recognition of the fact that the gift is worthless if one's name is inscribed on it? It might have cost £500 but I would not give that amount if Deputy McCreevy's name was inscribed on it, for example. I would not expect it to be worth £500 if my name was on it. It happened when my county got to keep the Sam Maguire Cup after winning it three years in a row. That cup is worth more than £500. What does one do in a case like that? What is covered by that £500?
First, we are not talking about gifts that are given for personal reasons. I do not know how one would characterise the Sam Maguire Cup.
It happened to my predecessor.
My final question has to do with the provision in the Schedule about "travel facilities, living accommodation, meals or entertainment supplied during the appropriate period aforesaid to the person concerned free of charge or at a price that was less than commercial price". One of the advantages of being a TD or a public representative is that if one ever wanted to go on holiday to an unusual part of Galway, one may be able to get the use of a house for a week on account of contacts that one might have made over the years. Certainly, the value of that would hardly be more than £500 a year.
That provision is a very grey area. What if a person said that it would cost £1,000 to stay in a certain hotel for a week, but I will give it to him for £800 because he is a Deputy? Where does one draw the line in that matter?
This provision does not apply to travel within this country but abroad. This is in line with procedures in other countries. A similar provision is included in the provisions and register of interests in the UK, for example.
One can go anywhere they like here and not be penalised?
If one feels that somebody is securing undue influence by giving one free or subsidised accommodation it would come under the First Schedule which would cover any other matter.
Many of us who have been around for a long time have not got too much of that.
I went to South Africa as an observer of its elections and my expenses were paid for by a foreign organisation. I would have been under some influence, as a member of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, to go, but my funding was not provided by the Government or any Irish agency. Would that have to be declared? I happen to be a member of an international political organisation who sponsored my visit to South Africa. Would that have to be declared under the Bill?
Guidelines would be drawn up to interpret this provision. If, for example, somebody is engaged in travel in connection with the interparliamentary union or similar organisations — for example, there was a European delegation of observers to South Africa — it would not be regarded as declarable travel under the provisions. If, for example, a foreign Government decided to sponsor a group of Deputies to visit their country to give their side to a regional conflict, that would be declarable travel under the terms of the Bill. A trip one may be taking in a generic parliamentary capacity would come under these guidelines.
If a travel agent operating here gave one a free trip — to the World Cup in America, for example — would that be declarable?
If it was not a close personal friend who gave this trip — it may be normal for a friend to do this — it would be declarable under this provision.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Title agreed to.