Enda Kenny
Question:1 Deputy Enda 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. [16300/10]
View answerWednesday, 26 May 2010
Questions (1, 2, 3)
Eamon Gilmore
Question:2 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach his plans to amend the code of conduct for office holders; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18903/10]
View answer
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:3 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he plans to amend the code of conduct for office holders; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20229/10]
View answerOral answers (66 contributions)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.
The Code of Conduct for Office Holders was drawn up by the Government pursuant to section 10(2) of the Standards in Public Office Act 2001 following consultation with the Standards in Public Office Commission, and was published in July 2003. A review of the code will be carried out, in consultation with the Standards in Public Office Commission, after the Ethics in Public Office (Amendment) Bill has been enacted.
Is it intended to change the Cabinet handbook so Ministers cannot give false information to the courts?
That is not a matter for the Cabinet handbook; it is a general principle to which we all subscribe.
It is a general principle that was breached in the case of a sworn affidavit laid before the court by the former Minister for Defence. Should it not be made perfectly clear to anybody with the privilege of serving in Cabinet that this is beyond any political action? The Cabinet handbook should state that.
The former Minister for Defence explained that in the House and apologised for the issues that arose. As he said, there was no intention on his part to give wrong information.
It happened. All I am asking is whether it is intended to correct or expand the Cabinet handbook to make the matter perfectly clear for every person who will serve in Cabinet over the coming years.
I understand the use of the Government jet must be cleared by the Taoiseach. There was no clearance given by him for the Government jet's flight to Las Vegas. I pointed out his matter some time ago.
The Deputy got a reply in writing about that.
I did.
I refer the Deputy to the correspondence, which confirms that the assertion he makes is nonsense. He needed a clarification, yet he has come into the House to keep this up.
Is the Taoiseach, as one who authorises the use of the Government jet, prepared to write into the Cabinet handbook that the people's jet can only be used on his authorisation by a Minister and to make it clear, if a situation like Las Vegas were to arise again, the jet could not move without his authorisation?
The Deputy has a clarification from me in writing about that matter and he knows there is no basis for his assertion.
It is also the case that a former Minister——
It is not appropriate to raise individual cases at this time.
There is nothing to ask.
This question relates to the code of conduct and asks the Taoiseach his plans to amend the code of conduct——
Are we going to deal with individual cases continually?
Individual cases are examples of breaches of the code of conduct. I asked the Taoiseach his plans to amend the code of conduct for officeholders and if he would make a statement on the matter. Is it proposed to write into the Cabinet handbook that Ministers should not make false declarations to a court? Will he also write into the handbook that the use of the Government jet should be authorised by the Taoiseach only and it cannot be used outside the code? We have an example of a Minister racking up a charge of €46,000 for delivering Fianna Fáil leaflets. Is this what is involved in Cabinet conduct? These are three examples of where the Taoiseach should amend the Cabinet handbook to make it clear to Ministers and future officeholders that such is the case.
I have answered both questions twice. With regard to the first question, it is a matter for Ministers to act with integrity at all times.
The Taoiseach appointed them.
I have indicated to the Deputy again that there was no intention on the then Minister's part, as he outlined in his apology to the House in regard to that matter, and he subsequently resigned his office.
After the Taoiseach voted to keep him in office.
It is not a matter for the Cabinet handbook for a self-evident principle like that to apply.
It is.
The second issue the Deputy raised was about the plane.
It is a jet.
He comes into the House and he hopes he can get a few tabloid headlines but when I send him the facts of the situation, he comes in two months later and he starts the same craic.
It is not craic.
What is the point in giving the Deputy the proper information?
I asked whether the Taoiseach is prepared to amend the Cabinet handbook or not.
There is no breach of the Cabinet handbook guidelines whatsoever in regard to this matter, as the Deputy was told directly. What is the point in giving him that information if he is going to come in and play the old game again? It is the same old story with him the whole time.
The Taoiseach is still defending the former Minister for Defence.
Was there ever a breach?
The Taoiseach continues to defend the former Minister for Defence. Before he signed his sworn affidavit, he should have known and could have read the Cabinet handbook, which would have outlined what not to do. That is not the way Ministers should conduct themselves and the Taoiseach knows that.
These questions are about the possible revision of the code of conduct for officeholders, which the Standards in Public Office Commission, SIPO, has been seeking for some time. The Taoiseach's response to this is that when the Ethics in Public Office (Amendment) Bill 2007 is passed, he will review the code with SIPO. The legislation has been around a long time. It was first announced by the Taoiseach's predecessor, Deputy Bertie Ahern, and the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Michael McDowell, on the steps of Government Buildings in the autumn of 2006 following the disclosure that the former Taoiseach had received some payments while he was Minister for Finance from friends, associates and so on. It became known as the dig out Bill and it was introduced by the present Taoiseach when he was Minister for Finance.
It is intended under the legislation that if one is an officeholder and somebody offers one a gift, one would go to SIPO to check whether it is all right to accept the gift. The Bill was passed by the Seanad but we have not seen sight of it since, as it was never introduced in this House. When will it be brought into the House? If we have to wait for the review of the code of conduct for officeholders until that Bill is passed, we will be quite a while waiting because it has been going on for four years. What will happen to that legislation? Is it still the Government's intention to have it enacted? Can he give us some idea when it might be enacted in order that we can get some idea as to when he will consult SIPO about changes to the code of conduct for officeholders?
The reason I suggest it should await this is because the code of conduct cannot impose new requirements which are not legislatively based. It is based on the present legislation and, therefore, one cannot change the code in the absence of legislative amendment. As the Deputy said, the Ethics in Public Office (Amendment) Bill 2007 is available to be enacted. It is a matter for the Whips as to when it can be taken. The Government can discuss that with the Whips. The Bill was proposed to amend the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995 to provide that ministerial and parliamentary officeholders and Oireachtas members are not to accept benefits, that is gifts, loans or below cost services, worth in aggregate more than €2,000 from a friend for personal reasons in a period — usually a calendar year — comprehended by an interests statement prepared under the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995, unless they have obtained the opinion of the Standards in Public Office Commission that acceptance of the benefit would not be likely to materially influence the recipient in the performance of his or her functions or duties. If offered a benefit on an occasion where it would not be practical to refuse it, the recipient must seek the opinion afterwards and must give up the benefit or its value if the commission is unable to issue such an opinion. That is the purpose and objective of the legislation but we cannot amend or review the code unless we amend the legislation.
What has delayed the legislation? The Taoiseach was responsible for its introduction. I have wondered about the legislation. A gift or benefit of up to €2,000 is sizeable and the idea that somebody given the responsibility of running a Department would not be able to exercise judgement on whether it is appropriate to receive a gift of that size without seeking the opinion of SIPO seems extraordinary. The Bill was announced at the time to provide some political cover, particularly for the then Minister, Michael McDowell, following the emergence of the dig-out money at the tribunal of inquiry. It is a fig leaf for the Taoiseach to say he is waiting for the enactment of the legislation to review the code of conduct for officeholders when it is perfectly clear that the Government has no intention whatever of progressing it.
That is not true.
What is delaying it? It was proposed in 2006, which is four years ago.
Many Bills have been sought by the Opposition over the past 12 months or more and this legislation was not included. The Bill was to be enacted in response to a debate at the time during which it was stated issues such as this should be covered by the Standards in Public Office Act 2001 and the code of conduct subsequently and that we needed a legislative base for it. It was the view of everyone at the time to bring in legislation. Now that we have brought it in, the Deputy is saying it is just political cover for something else. He cannot have it every way. At the time, he was demanding legislation.
Bring it into the House.
There is no problem. It is a matter for the Whips——
Where is it?
——and it is a matter for the Minister for Finance to bring forward the legislation and finalise it. It is finished in the Seanad.
That is a load of nonsense.
It is not.
The Taoiseach knows well it is not a matter for the Whips. The Government Whip orders the business the Government, of which the Taoiseach is the head, decides should be ordered. He or she does not operate as an independent——
He brings some sort of order to the House.
That is fine. I have no problem with order in the House and the ordering of its business, but the Government decides what business will be given to the Whip to be put on the Order Paper. Clearly, the Taoiseach has decided, for whatever reason, that he will not progress that Bill.
To say the review of the code of conduct for officeholders is awaiting the passage of legislation amounts to awaiting something the Government has no intention of progressing in the first place. Will the Taoiseach bring it in?
That is Deputy Gilmore's assertion, but it is not the situation.
It is a fact.
I am responding to the situation——
It is a fact. The Government has had four years.
The Minister for Finance has brought in a good deal of important legislation in the House over the past 12 to 18 months. It is not a question of the Minister twiddling his thumbs while there is legislation to be passed. He has done a considerable amount of very important work in that area for the country, the Parliament and the Government. This is another Bill that is required to be completed, and it can be completed. It is a matter for the Minister and the Chief Whip, in the first instance, along with the other Whips, to decide when it can be taken. We did not introduce the Bill so that it would not be implemented. It is a question of going ahead with it. It is a matter of some priority and importance at present.
I want to ask about another matter involving promised legislation. In the Taoiseach's 2009 Ard-Fheis speech he promised new legislation to regulate political donations, particularly with regard to referendum campaigns. When will we see that legislation?
Again, that will be a matter for the line Minister to bring forward in due course. I believe it would be helpful to bring forward such legislation. In previous referendums we saw substantial funds being applied which were not accounted for in the way that political parties have to be accountable for funds. That was the thinking behind that.
Do I take it the line Minister is the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy John Gormley, in this case?
Yes.
The line Minister moves very slowly. The Minister, Deputy Gormley, told the House last night that he was going to fast-track the appointment of an electoral commission. This was his excuse for having his party vote against the proposal that there should be a time limit on by-elections, as presented by Fine Gael. The proposal to have an electoral commission was promised in the original programme for Government, which the Minister and the Taoiseach concluded three years ago. After three years it is somewhat rich to have the line Minister saying that he is going to fast-track it. I do not have a great deal of confidence that a Minister who is only now talking about fast-tracking something that was promised three years ago is going to introduce the additional legislation the Government promised in 2009.
The Deputy raised this two weeks ago and the fact that the Minister is proceeding with it now is something the Deputy does not support either. The issue of the independent electoral commission and the preparation of Green and White Papers on local government reform are all matters the Minister is proceeding with. He indicated to the House yesterday that he is proceeding with that particular issue.
Changes to the code of conduct for officeholders that could be considered would presumably be informed by new situations presenting or by the performance of the existing code. Has any consideration been given in terms of a review of the effectiveness of the existing code, given the increase in the limit from €650 to €2,000 in cash or equivalent value that officeholders are obliged to report? How many such declarations have been made and can the Taoiseach advise where the record of such declarations is held? What is the actual declaration process?
In relation to the responsibility of officeholders to declare any material interest in a given performance consequent on their roles as Minister, Minister of State or whatever, can he indicate the number of declarations since 2003 under the particular heading where an officeholder had a material interest in a specific performance he or she was required to carry out because of the office he or she held? Does the Taoiseach know how many declarations have been made under that particular heading within the code of conduct since 2003? As with the first question, can he advise what the methodology is and say to whom such declarations are made? Where is the record held of such declarations and is it publicly accessible?
These are obligations on individual Members of the House. It is up to those who are officeholders to discharge whatever requirements exist. They are submitted, as the Deputy knows, to the Clerk of the Dáil. They are also submitted, as appropriate, to the Standards in Public Office Commission. That is where they reside and that is where the records appear. These are matters all Deputies and officeholders have to comply with.
I am not aware of the individual issues that arise for Deputies in relation to complying with those requirements. They are statutory requirements for each individual Member to consider and comply with, and I understand this is what happens. If they do not, the Standards in Public Office Commission gets in touch with them about it.
Regarding the previous issue raised by Deputy Gilmore about the amounts, these are all matters of judgment. The threshold of €650 has not increased since the passage of the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995, apart from being changed to take account of a convenient euro equivalent at the time of the currency changeover in 2002. The original figure under the 1995 Act was £500 and this was changed to €650, with effect from 1 January 2002. The thresholds set in the 1995 ethics Act was the first attempt to set thresholds in this area. It is by no means unreasonable for that first attempt to be reviewed 15 years later, in the light of experience, not to mention the need to counterbalance the effects of inflation eroding the original figure over the intervening years. The Bill, when enacted, will be setting this amount after 15 years not just for the present, but for the next period of years. Deputies will be able to make their view about thresholds known when the Bill is debated.
As Minister for Finance I consulted the Select Committee on Members' Interests of both Houses about the proposals in the Bill before it was published. The Seanad committee agreed with them while the Dáil committee welcomed the proposals, noting that they would further strengthen the accountability of Members of the Oireachtas.
Am I to understand from the Taoiseach's reply that in both of the incidences I have highlighted, the Clerk of the Dáil is the appropriate officer to whom officeholders, Ministers and Ministers of State, make their respective declarations both in relation to gifts received and where there are material interests in connection with any given performance they are obliged to carry out? Is that record accessible to the public? Does it have to be accessed under the Freedom of Information Act or is it open to scrutiny? Are all these declarations open, public records?
Will he again note that my question is about whether the performance in relation to the existing code in any way urges or suggests that changes are required in terms of the code of conduct? Is the Taoiseach aware of anything regarding the performance under the existing code which may give rise, in his view, to a need for changes to the existing code?
The code of conduct does not stand in isolation but is part of the wider ethics framework established by the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995 and the Standards in Public Office Act 2001. Section 10(7) of the latter requires office holders to have regard to and be guided by the code. The code cannot impose any new requirements that are not already set out in legislation; it mainly attempts to provide guidance at a level of detail that would be difficult to express in legislation. It can, however, be used by the Standards in Public Office Commission as guidance on whether a complaint made under section 4 of the Act should be investigated. This is the section of the Act under which a complaint of a breach of the ethics Act can be made.
The commission has a supervisory role under the ethics legislation. Its functions include supervising the disclosure of interests and compliance with tax clearance requirements. The commission has specific statutory powers to investigate and make findings about failures of compliance with the Act. The code of conduct, under the ethics Act, is admissible in any investigation of the commission and may be taken into account by it in its determinations. The penalties available to the commission are those specified in the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995; that is, the making of a report under section 24 to the Committee on Members' Interests of the relevant House. The code is also admissible in any proceedings before a court, tribunal or committee of this or the other House. The code in its own right indicates standards of conduct and integrity for office holders which are not expressly covered by legislation.
That is the role of the code of conduct. With regard to the accessibility of information about declarations made by Members, Members' interests are published on an annual basis. These provisions remain in place and are not in any way interfered with.
I must mention to Deputy Ó Caoláin that declarations in respect of Ministers are publicly available on the website.
I thank the Ceann Comhairle for the reply to my question to the Taoiseach.
Are they on the website?