Enda Kenny
Question:1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach his plans to amend the code of conduct for office holders; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1031/04]
View answerTuesday, 9 March 2004
Questions (1, 2, 3)
Trevor Sargent
Question:2 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if amendments are planned to the code of conduct for office holders; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5660/04]
View answer
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:3 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if it is proposed to amend the code of conduct for office holders; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7659/04]
View answerOral answers (71 contributions)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.
The code of conduct for office holders, as drawn up by the Government following extensive consultations with the Standards in Public Office Commission, was published by the commission on 3 July 2003. The code applies prospectively from that date. Given that the code has applied for only eight months and that it resulted from such an extensive consultation with the Standards in Public Office Commission, I have no plans to amend it.
After the Taoiseach's return from the love-in over the weekend, does he think it appropriate that persons who are now officeholders find themselves unable to deliver on what they said would be their work during their period in Government? In view of two issues that were raised in the Dáil over the past two months, the first of which concerned Punchestown——
The three questions refer to plans to amend the code of conduct.
I know the Ceann Comhairle is going to fly at me. He was deliberately waiting for that.
The policing of the code of conduct is a matter for the Standards in Public Office Commission.
I am going to ask the Taoiseach whether he will amend the code of conduct. The Ceann Comhairle was waiting patiently. As soon as I mentioned Punchestown, here comes the Ceann Comhairle.
He was waiting to punch Deputy Kenny.
Deputy Kenny should try Cheltenham next.
The Chair was being very generous to Deputy Kenny in allowing his first question.
Tuesday, 2.31 p.m., the Ceann Comhairle strikes.
We cannot go all over the place with questions. The three questions were submitted.
We will not go all over the place. I was going to travel from Punchestown to Kenmare.
The three questions are there and we are talking purely about plans to amend the code of conduct. As I pointed out to the Deputy, the policing of the code of conduct is a matter for the Standards in Public Office Commission.
It might require an amendment.
I ask the Taoiseach whether it is proposed to amend the code of conduct for officeholders so that politically-appointed advisers will not sit on boards that decide multimillion euro contracts? Will the code of conduct for officeholders be amended to cater for situations in which the Taoiseach's political adviser is in a position to indicate the types of letter that other Ministers should write, in respect of which approval is again given for substantial allocations of money that have not been the subject of published criteria on the drawing of grants?
The code of conduct does not stand in isolation. It is part of the wider ethical framework that the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995 and the Standards in Public Office Act 2001 established. Section 10(7) of the 2001 Act binds officeholders to have regard to and be guided by the code. Everything that is in the Acts must be followed. Most issues that have arisen and any of the rules and procedures that must be followed are there. Some of the issues Deputy Kenny mentioned are not in breach of any codes.
I am sure Members would be interested to know whether any complaints have been made so far under the code. Will the Taoiseach give any thought to the need for an amendment on the opening of bank accounts in family members' names to obscure controversial moneys received by a Minister, for example? Does that require an amendment or is it covered under the code at present?
That would be a matter for the Standards in Public Office Commission.
We are talking about amendments, so I thought it would be worth asking the Taoiseach whether that matter would be worthy of an amendment.
Does the Taoiseach think that the decentralisation announcement calls into question adherence to the code, given that five out of the eight Departments that are being decentralised are going to Ministers' areas and that Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, made no secret of the political advantage in that?
The Deputy is again going outside the content of the questions.
Would that not be a case for an amendment, or is it covered under the code?
I do not know whether there have been any complaints. That is a matter for the Standards in Public Office Commission. Some of the matters Deputy Sargent mentioned would come within the ambit of the Act and some of the other matters would not come within it. Normal executive decisions would not come within the ambit of a code that is meant to achieve the highest standards. The Deputy is talking about normal decisions made by a Government Department with which there is nothing wrong. If anyone was receiving money that would come within the Act.
Does the Taoiseach agree that office holders generally have a higher level of public profile and therefore should be mindful that——
Sorry, Deputy, you are going well outside the content of the three questions, which refer to amending the code of conduct for office holders.
If you allow me to finish the sentence I have started, it will become obvious to you and everyone else that my question is relevant. I will start once more. Does the Taoiseach agree that office holders, who have a particularly high profile, have a responsibility or duty to be mindful that any action on their part with regard to the use of resources could be construed as inappropriate in the context of an election?
Sorry, Deputy, that question does not arise out of these three questions. For the benefit of the Deputy, your question——
This is outrageous.
——like the others, ask the Taoiseach if it is proposed to amend the code of conduct for office holders.
That is correct.
The Deputy's question does not arise.
If you allow me, a Cheann Comhairle, I will continue. The painful exercise of this constant challenge need never upset any of us. In the time this has taken I could have asked the question and the Taoiseach could be on his feet replying. Does the Taoiseach propose to extend the code of conduct, as it should apply, to all elections, including local and EU elections? Does he agree that there are many instances of actions by Ministers in the lead-up to elections that are construed by many as inappropriate? Will the Taoiseach consider some of the announcements made over the weekend——
Sorry, Deputy, that does not arise.
——by many of his colleagues in Cabinet in terms of sweeteners and promises, which his party is very good at, in the lead-up to the local and EU elections?
The Deputy is being disorderly.
I am only trying to ask a question.
There are ways and means of asking questions.
It is a very difficult passage from here to there, and even when we get there we still do not get answers.
Sorry, Deputy, it is not appropriate to go outside the substance of the three questions submitted to the Taoiseach. In fairness to Deputies who have asked other questions, they are entitled to have them answered today or tomorrow. If the Deputy goes all over the place——
I assure you I intend to be absolutely fair to all others who have asked questions. My problem is with the Member who must answer them. Perhaps the Taoiseach will be good enough to advise the House whether he intends to extend the code of conduct to apply to local and European elections. It clearly seems to have no application in these areas, judging by the raft of promises and sweeteners offered over the weekend, with which the Taoiseach is no doubt delighted.
The code of conduct applies to office holders, to me, the Tánaiste, Ministers, Ministers of State and chairpersons and deputy chairpersons of this House and the Seanad. It is concerned with anything that would be appropriate and includes the ambit of office holders as defined in the Ethics in Public Office Act. If the Deputy thinks the code of conduct is concerned with anyone announcing or doing anything, I am not sure what he is complaining about. Is he complaining about office holders doing something or not doing something?
That is the question.
The Taoiseach will be left with nobody in the Cabinet if he applies that.
Normally the Deputy asks me why they are not taking action, but his question today seems to be concerned with what they are doing. To cover both sides, as the Deputy is doing, I will not amend the code of conduct to discipline people for doing their jobs — I certainly will not discipline them for something they have not done——
Or do not intend to do.
I will encourage them to do so. However, that does not come under a code of conduct or under the heading of ethics. To make it so would be stretching the ethics Act.
In the matter of amending the code of conduct, my question is to do with the changes that have been introduced by the Government in the area of health reform. A very powerful body, the national steering committee, has been established. Would it not be appropriate to amend the code of conduct to include members of this committee? For example, all the members apart from the chairman are senior civil servants, and I do not think anybody has a difficulty with that——
I would prefer if the Deputy did not go into detail.
The only other person on this powerful body, which is driving the health service and taking responsibility for it, is the managing director of a pharmaceutical company.
The Deputy is out of order.
In fairness to him and anybody else fulfilling these very senior positions, would it not be desirable to have a code of conduct because otherwise there is bound to be a conflict of interest sooner or later?
The Deputy has made her point and she is out of order.
I ask the Taoiseach to reply.
It should not be necessary to have a code of conduct under the ethics legislation but the whole idea is that the code conforms fully with the statutory requirements. It is not easy to put into legislative terms what is right and wrong about the standards of conduct and integrity of office holders that are not expressly covered by legislation. I am not too sure if I understand the Deputy's question correctly. Is she suggesting that the code should cover Members who are on various boards or committees? They are already covered. The Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service is currently considering a code to do with appointments to boards and the regulations that should apply, but it is not covered by the Ethics in Public Office Act which primarily governs what politicians should do. There is a code for advisers and board members.
I gather from the Taoiseach's response that he has no intention of either amending or improving the code of conduct. Is the Taoiseach therefore suggesting that we have a perfect code of conduct for office holders? Is he suggesting that there is no room for improvement and that he is completely satisfied with the present code of conduct?
I am not saying that. I am saying the code has been in existence for only eight months following a long discussion over approximately 18 months. I suggest that the code should at least be given time to run for a reasonable period before it is amended. It is too early for amendments. If there are good suggestions I suggest they be held until we review the code. Two Oireachtas committees reviewed the code over a long period as did the Standards in Public Office Commission which produced the code. It is not a codeof conduct produced by the Government but by the Standards in Public Office Commission following consultation with Members of this House in two separate committees.
Does the Taoiseach agree that under the existing code Ministers or Ministers of State contesting the European Parliament elections would be expected to resign their office at some point in advance of the elections? Will the Taoiseach say at what point he envisages that will happen? Will he state how he views the impact of the Kelly judgment on the same issue?
To the best of my knowledge and subject to my checking the code, that is not part of the code. It has not been done in any election by any members of any Government who were Ministers and Ministers of State and there have been many precedents in recent European Parliament elections.
Under the code?
I do not think it is covered by the code.
What precedent is there under the code?
The Deputy states it is in the code but I do not think it is stated in the code that people must resign if they are candidates in a European election.
This is the first time we have had European elections under the code.
It is the first time we have had a code but not the first time we have had legislation.
It would expedite the reshuffle.
On the second question about the Kelly judgment, the application of the Kelly rules would now apply in any election. Any use of a Department or agency in an election would have to be taken into account for costs purposes.
Has the Taoiseach examined or has caused to be examined the situation in other countries, particularly other countries that may have had trials, troubles and tribulations such as we have experienced in recent years? Does he think we could learn from the codes of conduct introduced or updated in those countries?
The types of codes used in many other countries were examined and discussed by the committees of the House. The assessment was that our legislation, our codes and the Cabinet Handbook, which was amended a few years ago, tend to be far more strict. Our compliance legislation, probably because it is new, is far tougher than in most countries in Europe, and so it should be.
The code mentions lobbyists and how they are an integral part of a functioning democracy. Is there a particular definition to which the Taoiseach may wish to refer in regard to lobbyists? Given that we understand legislation is required, should the heads of that legislation have been incorporated in the code in order that people can understand what is being referred to?
When the Standards in Public Office Commission set out the code of conduct it made it clear that the code had to be read in conjunction with the legislation. The code spelled out clearly what it expected the conduct would be in various cases. One cannot claim that it is just a code of conduct. If any Member is questioned by the Standards in Public Office Commission or on any other matter of integrity about officeholders, the legislation is taken into account as is the code, even though it is a code of practice and is not legislatively based. One is deemed to be answerable to the code. The regulations are very specific. Anyone in breach of the code must answer to the Standards in Public Office Commission. The issue would be dealt with in the same way as if it was legislatively based. That was made absolutely clear. One cannot go into a hearing of the Standards in Public Office Commission and say that this is just a code of practice. It has been made absolutely clear that one is answerable to the code and any breach of the code would be taken as if it was legislation. Therefore, one is answerable to the code of practice. It would be different if it was a code of practice in industrial relations in the trade union movement. One is totally bound by the code. That is how it is read.
Will the Taoiseach agree that a further extension of the code of conduct should be considered in the context of Ministers releasing details of announcements pending to their own party representatives, sometimes 24 to 48 hours prior to other representatives in the House and that there is an inequality and inequity in practice by these Ministers? Does the Taoiseach consider that is inappropriate and that it is an issue that should be brought under the aegis of the code of conduct and the Standards in Public Office Commission?
The rules and standards are set out in the Cabinet Handbook on how people should deal with certain issues and it has to be complied with. I have often seen ministerial statements taken up by Members of the Opposition and used to great effect for their own benefit. I am not sure if that hinders anybody too much.