Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 19 Feb 1993

Vol. 426 No. 4

Dáil Reform: Statements (Resumed).

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Ms E. Fitzgerals)

The introduction of a register of Members' interests is a significant step towards the more open regulation of parliamentary standards and brings us into line with practice in most western democracies. There has been widespread public concern expressed about standards and practices among decision makers in our society particularly arising out of the public controversies of the last couple of years. There is a public demand to tighten up practices and procedures and a demand for greater openness and transparency in the political system. New codes of practice have been issued to the boards of semi-State companies in relation to declaration of interests and it is timely that the interests of Oireachtas Members should be registered as part of the process of greater public accountability.

As public representatives, it is important for the health of our democracy and to instil confidence in politicians and the political system that politicians should publicly declare those interests which could be seen to have a bearing on the conduct of public life. The register before the House today is substantially the same as that discussed by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges in the last Dáil. The introduction of such a register had been promised by the previous administration by September 1992, but that was overtaken by events.

For many years it has been the law that local authority members have had to register any interests in land or property in their authority's area, and as most of the Members of the House are or have been at some stage members of a local authority, it is a procedure which is familiar to most of us. The new system will extend that degree of public accountability and transparency to Deputies. I believe that can only enhance confidence in politicians and the political system. Greater openness can serve to remove some of the myths and unfounded suspicions that can flourish in its absence.

There is a great deal of unwarranted criticism of Deputies as being underworked and overpaid which we know to be far from the reality. I would like to single out the campaign being waged by The Star newspaper in this regard because it is completely unfair to Members who put in very long hours and give a high degree of public service, in many cases taking a cut in their income in order to come into this House. I know the high standards of service given by Members, often at significant financial loss to themselves and their families, and indeed the only interest many Members might have to declare are their overdrafts.

The Programme for Government provides that registration of Members' interests as well as of senior public servants and senior figures in the semi-State companies will be put on a statutory basis. It also provides for the registration of gifts to office holders. I hope to have the heads of a Bill ready in the next week or so for submission to Government. Separate legislation will provide for the declaration of political donations, State fundings of political parties, and limits on campaign spending. Together, these form an important package which will serve to enhance the political process and remove any suspicion of hidden influences on the action of those involved in politics.

Some confusion has arisen out of a radio interview I gave last week where, in reply to a question about the scale of penalties, it may have appeared that I intended the forthcoming Ethics Bill would require the disclosure of amounts of bank deposits held by Members. I would like to set the record straight. Let me make it clear that there is no intention, and never has been, that Members would be required to state the amount of shares or of bank deposits which they hold. The Private Members' Bill on Ethics in Government introduced by my party in 1991 proposed that the existence of interest but not their amounts should be disclosed. That Bill was modelled substantially on the Australian system of declarations.

There is a reasonable balance to be struck between the right of the public to information and reasurance that there is no conflict of interest for Deputies, and the right of a Deputy and his or her family to privacy. While it is important in order to allay public disquiet that certain interests be a matter of public record, there are other interests where it may be appropriate that they be recorded but not published.

I think it is a matter of some regret to this House that a Deputy of the standing of Deputy Alan Dukes should descend to patronising and sexist language in his description of proposals in relation to Members' interests. I would like to remind Deputy Dukes of his party's support for the strong provisions contained in Labour's 1991 Private Members' Ethics Bill and I would hope that it is that support rather than sexism and sexual innuendo which will form the basis of his party's response to the proposals now before the House.

As the House embarks on the registration of interests to be followed by legislation, it is important that what we do is done right. There is little point in trying to re-establish public confidence if the legislation concerned is clearly full of loopholes as it will then have quite the opposite effect. I believe we should try to build on the best of international practice in this area in framing our own legislation. I have been examining the range of financial interests which are declared in other jurisdictions. In framing legislation it is important not to leave such loopholes as would undermine confidence in the register of interests or in the seriousness with which the House approaches the issues concerned.

In many jurisdictions in addition to listed registered interests there is a provision for an ad hoc declaration by members when an issue in which they have a direct financial interest comes before the legislature. At present local authority members must declare their interest if a matter in which they have an interest is being debated and they must withdraw from the meeting and refrain from voting. Similar provisions apply in the guidelines for boards of semi-State companies and I would welcome the views of Members on how this issue should be handled in the House.

It is important that any monitoring system of registration of interests be independent, effective, and have powers of investigation where warranted. I have the greatest of confidence in the integrity of the Clerk of the Dáil and the Clerk of the Seanad. In previous debates in this House on an ethics code, it had also been suggested that the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Ombudsman might also be involved. Those suggestions came from the Fine Gael benches in the ethics debate last year.

I would see the enactment of ethics legislation as an important preventative measure to help safeguard our democracy. To be effective any system of registration of interests must provide for penalties which are proportionate to the offence concerned. Small breaches would attract small penalties, but serious breaches should attract serious penalties. If control arrangements are lax they can be readily circumvented, and nobody in the House would like to see a situation develop here as we have seen embroil the Italian Socialist Party, if our legislation is for the optics rather than for real.

Mr. Dukes

On a point of order, I hate to interrupt the Minister but we should find out if there is a sufficient number of Government Deputies who have an interest in what the Minister is saying.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the Deputy calling for a quorum?

Mr. Dukes

Yes.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present.

Ms E. Fitzgerald

It is important that any legislation we prepare in this area can stand the test of time. It is important to do it right. This is a new Dáil with an unprecedented number of new faces. I hope today's debate will set a new beginning in how we can improve the conduct of our business and the standing of the political process.

I know only too well how hard Deputies work and how practical concern for the people who elect us is shared right across the parties in the political spectrum. Let us hope that today we make a new start making that work more effective, more open and more accountable.

Mr. Dukes

I am surprised and even a little bit amused that the Minister of State should have accused me of using sexist language, sexism and sexual innuendo. They are mighty words. I wonder if I were to say that these proposals embrace a number of things that I find repugnant would she regard that as sexist language. I would invite the Minister to be a little less thinskinned and defensive as she is, although I can understand that in defending these proposals the Minister has every reason to feel defensive. They are the most appallingly silly proposals that have come before this House for a long time.

The intention of the scheme appears, as far as one can discern it, to be to provide a procedure to anticipate, elucidate or obviate circumstances or cases in which Members of the Oireachtas could be influenced in an improper way in the discharge of their duties and functions as Members of the Oireachtas. It must be supposed that those who are proposing this scheme believe that there are cases or circumstances in which legislative and other decisions of this House might be influenced in a manner contrary to the public interest as a result of undeclared or concealed interests on the part of Members. The proposers of these measures have significantly failed to demonstrate that that danger is there.

Let us look at what happens in practice. In practice legislation passed by the Oireachtas is legislation that is desired by the Government and is in a form decided by the Government. Amendments that are unacceptable to the Government rarely find their way on to the Statute Book. Similarly, other decisions of the Oireachtas are in a form decided by the Government. There is a possible exception of motions passed in Private Members' Time; but there again, with the exception of the period of the 25th Dáil between 1987 and 1989, Private Members' Motions unacceptable to the Government rarely succeed.

One of the motions which did succeed, and which precipitated the 1989 General Election, had to do with assistance for people who had been infected with the HIV virus as a result of blood transfusions. That Government, having had an election on the issue, some months after the election went and did what they were asked to do.

The occasions when this House passes anything, either legislation or a regulation or a simple motion, that the Government do not want to see passed, are very rare. What the Oireachtas does is almost invariably what the Government wants. What Members in this House finally produce as output is almost invariably what the Government want. It is rarely what the Opposition want. It can hardly ever be exactly what an individual Deputy or Senator on any side of the House might want in pursuit of an undeclared interest, whether benign or malign.

I challenge members of the Government to identify for me any piece of legislation or any regulation passed by the Houses of the Oireachtas directly applicable in any area of public policy which has been clearly modified to the detriment of the general public by the influence of any Member of either of the Houses suspected of being inspired by an undeclared interest of the type contemplated in these proposals.

Mr. Ferris

We no not have any.

Mr. Dukes

If no such example can be pointed out to me then I can only conclude that these proposals amount to nothing more — and I repeat it — than a self-indulgent exercise of political prurience foisted on us by a group of woolly minded political peeping Toms. The people on whom these peeping Toms spy regard those peeping Toms as ugly, pathetic and pitiable creatures.

Mr. Ferris

That is a sexist remark.

Mr. Dukes

That is not a sexist remark. If the Deputy was the object of the attentions of a peeping Tom he would be very upset. If either of the Ministers of State opposite were the objects of the perverted attentions of a peeping Tom they would be affected also. The Deputy should be concerned——

Mr. Ferris

We have nothing to hide.

Mr. Dukes

——to protect them from it. Indeed, they may have nothing to hide. The Deputy knows as well as I do, since he is from the country of the valley of the squinting windows, that if somebody sets up a public official peeping Tom the only conclusion the public will draw from it is that there is something to be seen, whether there is or not.

Mr. Costello

I am sure the Deputy is worried about that.

Mr. Dukes

Allegations that might be made about improper influence exercised by a Member of the Houses of the Oireachtas on the basis of an undeclared interest in any capacity other than that of a Member of these Houses is not the business of this House and is not a proper business for any committee or any system of ethics set up by this House.

The proposals are drafted in the most appallingly loose way by people who have no clear idea of what they are setting out to do. The proposals, for example, contain no definition of services. The text, as drafted, carries a very clear risk of entrapment for Members of the Oireachtas. There is no lower threshold for the value of registrable gifts or services and that omission could give rise to plainly vexatious complaints.

No reason is given, either here on in the Programme for Government, why a similar register of interests should not apply to influential public servants other than those mentioned here and in the Programme for Government. The reason is that it is not fashionable in our political and media culture, to knock those people, apart from the civil servants and senior officers in semi-State bodies. The proposers of these measures could not pretend that there are not potential abusers elsewhere.

Why is it deemed necessary for Members to declare real property without any distinction betwen residential property and any other kind of property? In the section which deals with business interests no distinction is made between substantial influential business interests and minimal interests. The Minister tells us that she does not want to know the amounts of any such interests. She wants to know of their existence. Does that mean a Member of this House who had the leeway or ability to buy and sell on the Stock Exchange is going to have to report every transaction? Is Iris Oifigiúil in early May going to have an endless list of small share dealing dabbles indulged in by Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas?

The proposals do not specify when the first 12 month reporting period could begin. The first list might be very long or very short. It will not mean a great deal. The concern — if there is any basis for a real concern — should be with gifts, however you define them, and not with all the other range of idiotic belt and braces stuff we see in these proposals.

It is proposed that these registrable interests should be published in the Iris Oifigiúil and in that way Members of the Oireachtas would have to give this information in public even if there was not the slightest chance or prospect that the interest declared would ever affect the discharge of their duties. At the expense of Members of the Oireachtas, this will produce a field day for gossip mongers, for chatterers and for begrudgers.

As the Minister of State referred to Marcos-type situations, my first reaction — and this will be the inevitable reaction of the chat shows and the media — would be to ask the Minister of State, since she is worried about Ferdinand Marcos, would she not also think about Imelda Marcos? For example, is the Minister of State going to tell us how many pairs of shoes she owns? That is the level of nonsense which is in these proposals. They do not know what they want to set out to do. They have not defined what the real target could be. They have not shown that any of these things can pervert the workings of the Houses of the Oireachtas in passing legislation.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has one minute left.

Mr. Dukes

One minute is more than enough to deal with this type of nonsense. Under the procedure provided for here, complaints, whether they are vexatious or not, could be published before the Member concerned would have the opportunity to deal with them. That would be entirely unjust, as would be the situation where a Member was not informed of the identity of the complainant. These proposals set out to produce what can only be an utterly demeaning situation for Members.

I have no difficulty in declaring my interests in this House but I would have to think long and hard before I would agree to any system or sign my name to any declaration, either voluntary or compulsory, of the kinds of interests set out here. I flatter myself in believing that what I say in this House and outside it has value, not because I am the owner of a mortgaged house, not because I might sometime buy myself a holiday cottage in the west of this country, not because I might sometime be a shareholder in AIB, not because sometime, as happens frequently, the Irish Council of the European Movement sends me, as an international vice-president of that movement, to meetings abroad, which would be declarable under this non-sensical scheme. I flatter myself that I am listened to, not because of any of those things and not because people think I might be on the make when I go on trips to Paris or Brussels, but because of the intrinsic value of what I say.

That will change if these peeping Tom proposals are ever put into effect. Nobody is going to worry about the content of what Members of these Houses say, they are going to worry about why they might say it, whether it is because they own a pub or a farm. These proposals are a classic example of unreflecting, self-reinforcing political hype, of which any Government with the slightest shred of respectability should be thoroughly ashamed.

Mr. Callely

Having listened to Deputy Dukes and the Minister, it appears we are in for an interesting debate here this morning in relation to the declaration of Members' interests. I am pleased that this Fianna Fáil led administration is putting forward a number of specific reforms which will help improve the activities and the efficiency and the openness of this House. Today we are focusing on one aspect — the declaration of Members' interests. Maybe we are a little premature with this debate because we are talking about it while an Ethics in Government Bill is in preparation. I would welcome it if we could first have a draft of that Bill before us so we would have more knowledge of its actual content.

Nevertheless, I still feel it is important to put certain matters before the House. First, it is generally recognised that all Members would welcome some type of registration. As the Minister has said, there are Members of this House who have been or are members of local authorities or health boards or have been involved in other local authority-related activities where a declaration of their interests has already been requested. To my knowledge I do not know any member of any party who has declined to declare that interest.

The difficulty posed by the declaration of interest register and the Bill on Ethics in Government lies in deciding how far we should go. A delicate and sensitive balance will have to be struck. I appreciate the point raised by Deputy Dukes in relation to a peeping Tom.

Mr. Dukes

The Deputy is not allowed to use those words; he will offend the Minister.

Mr. Callely

I hope Deputy Dukes will allow me——

Mr. Dukes

The Deputy should call it a peeping Thomasina; he will be safe then.

Mr. Callely

——to quote his words.

Mr. Dukes

Feel free.

Mr. Callely

In relation to the peeping Tom, the fact that we require a register may suggest there is something to hide, as Deputy Dukes indicated. It is generally recognised that that is far from the truth for the majority of Members of this House. Far too often I hear Members talking about overdraft facilities, about how this is a poor man's club, about the expense of public office, elections and so on. I do not accept that. Looking at the salary structures of Members and Ministers, it has to be recognised that salaries are generous and most Members benefit from the input and the workload they put into this House.

It is difficult to define how far the register should go, what declaration of relevant interest should be considered and how these are considered to influence Members' conduct or Members' actions in relation to their duties as public representatives. The Minister has indicated that there was a misinterpretation of her recent radio interview where she indicated it would be necessary for Members to state the amount of shares or bank deposits which they hold. That is totally unacceptable to any Member. It would also be virtually impossible to enforce or regulate because most Members either have a spouse or a family. Where does the buck stop? I am pleased to note that the Minister——

Mr. Dukes

They will be got at by the legislation.

Mr. Callely

That is why I said this debate is premature.

Mr. Dukes

Does the Deputy mean there is worse to come?

Mr. Callely

I am pleased to note that the Minister has put the record straight and said no such requirement is intended or ever has been. It would be an infringement of Members' liberties if we were to have to declare every last interest and that of our families. This is something I would be cautious about.

I would like us to continue to welcome people from all walks of life in our community into this House to ensure that we have a broad spectrum of society as Members of the House. Included in that broad spectrum should be a number of people from the business community. It is important that we would not be seen to be trying to set up a club or create a situation in which an individual who would otherwise like to become a Member of this House and who might have a great role to play would be deterred by a regulation, a Bill or registration which he would not wish to participate in. I honestly believe that whether one has a number of shares or an interest in a financial institution, by way of deposit or otherwise, would not interfere with the normal day to day role of a Member or the running of the House.

On the other hand, I can see areas where Members, because of activities outside of this House, may be influenced in their voting pattern or their contribution on an area in which they had an interest. This is why it is very necessary to have a register and why I fully support the registration and declaration of Members' interests. This should be done by means of a meaningful balanced approach with the support of all Members of this House. I would not like to see any ambiguity between various Members in relation to how we should go about that business.

I understand the last Government Whip brought forward regulations relating to this declaration. It was his intention at that time to have it on the Statute Book prior to the collapse of the Dáil. Due to the interest of various other political parties the idea of voluntary registration was generally agreed but did not develop any further. If agreement was reached between the Whips at that time surely we should be able to go that little step further and now have voluntary registration, but we are still talking about it. I would like to make it clear to our electorate and the general public that we have, as Deputy Dukes indicated, nothing to hide. We would be open in our declarations, but this should only go ahead with the general agreement of the House and with no ambiguity between Members as to what that declaration should contain. May I suggest at this stage that the Minister should enter into meaningful negotiations with all other political groupings in this House to ensure that when the proposed Ethics in Government Bill comes before this House there is agreement on it and that we approach it in a generous manner.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): If this was a court of law and the Minister of State, Deputy E. Fitzgerald, was appearing on behalf of the prosecution this morning the judge would have already thrown out the case because she does not establish the need for her proposal. She bases her case on very flimsy grounds, in my opinion.

The Minister of State's first paragraph talks about meeting public concerns. She refers to the public controversies of the last couple of years which gave rise to the public concern. She then ties that into the need to declare interests in this House. The main issues of public controversy over the last few years were the Goodman situation — now subject to inquiry before the Beef Tribunal about which, I am sure, the Ceann Comhairle will not let me speak — the Telecom and Greencore affairs. Taking the Greencore affair first, there was no suggestion at any stage that any Member of this House gained from anything that happened with Comhlucht Siúcre Éireann and Greencore. There was some suggestion that the former Taoiseach may have influenced the allocation of consultancies in the course of privatisation of the sugar company and the establishment of Greencore——

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not think we should go into that now.

Mr. Dukes

We are talking about ethics.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): A lot of people in the House would not like me to go into it. The Minister of State is basing her whole case on the controversies of previous years.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is a subject for another place.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): It is very relevant.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy knows my rulings on the matters pertaining to the Beef Tribunal, that they are sub judice.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): I am talking about Greencore and Comhlucht Siúcre Éireann. It is sugar, not beef. It is a different commodity.

An Ceann Comhairle

Let us be slow to enter into these areas.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): In the Book of Estimates published in the last 48 hours the Minister for Finance has increased his allocation for consultancies from £36,000 to £900,000. Right across Departments, allocations for consultancy fees have gone up by well over 100 per cent. I am sure the Ministers concerned in this administration will allocate them as they see fit and there will be no declaration of interests made by any of them.

If one looks at the Telecom affair, there was no suggestion that anybody in this House had any concern in it or played any part in it whatsoever. If we look at the decision to reintroduce export credit to Iraq it seems to me that the fact that the Labour Party have joined Fianna Fáil and re-elected Deputy Reynolds as Taoiseach would have exonerated him from any suggestion that political favouritism was shown to the beef industry. It seems to me that to claim we need declaration of interests and Ethics Bills because of the controversies over the last few years is not founded because those controversies related to persons outside this House.

I ask the Minister of State to give us one case where Members of this House acted unethically in pursuing their own interests in the course of legislation being passed through this House, one example of unethical behaviour by any Deputy on any side of the House which resulted in he or she lining his or her own pockets or doing something untoward. Cutting sticks to beat ourselves might be in the general catechism of the socialist movement, but if one really examines this House since 1922 it has been one of the cleanest Parliaments in the world. It is nearly impossible to think of a situation where somebody used this House when legislation was being passed to advantage themselves. The case is not made by the Minister that we require this legislation. If we looked at Governments, the behaviour of certain Ministers and ethics in a wider context, a case might be made, but it would not be met by this kind of declaration of interests.

The two greatest abuses of power I have seen in my time in this House were the rigging of the Public Estimates in 1980 in an attempt to return Fianna Fáil to power and the behaviour of the Labour Party in the autumn when they said that, whatever else they would do, they would not vote Deputy Reynolds back in as Taoiseach, which they then did. Those are the two greatest ethical breaches I have seen in this House. They had nothing to do with the declarations of interests but an awful lot to do with shabby unethical behaviour, where persons were serving their own interests in the pursuit of power, not financial gain.

Mr. Dukes

Like the grab for the Chair of the committees.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): Like the grab for the chairs of the committees, like the grab for the posts of convenors of the committees, like the cutting out of people in Opposition from any active participation in this House, like the grab-all attitude of the 101 Deputies who make the majority. That is unethical.

So far the behaviour of this administration, in many respects is also unethical, with the hiring of a multiplicity of personal advisers, the use of State resources to benefit their own party members and the use of taxpayers' money to hire programme managers. One common factor in all of these appointments, in relation to the Labour Party, is that they have all been active members of the Labour Party.

When we talk about transparency, openness and high standards in high places we should widen the debate and look at the standards which this administration has introduced. This administration is practising patronage and nepotism to a degree I have never seen before in this House. They have a gall to introduce this Mickey Mouse set of proposals according to which Members are expected to say if they own a house and have a mortgage on it or if they received £500 for an election campaign. They think they are improving the ethical standards of the House while they themselves are totally in breach of the same standards.

Reference has been made to local authorities. I am a member of a local authority and have declared my interests at local authority level. I see no problem with that. But, whether one follows these procedures or not, it will make no difference whatsoever to the practice in this House which has been very good. It will make no difference to the practice in Government, which in the couple of weeks that this Government has been in power has been quite bad.

The Minister in her innocence said that her proposals are going to be based on Australia. That is some headline. If one is looking for corruption, it is a long way to go; but one could not get a better example of people living in each other's pockets and of the abuse of power than the Australian system. And we go all the way to Australia to bring back a declaration of interests to this House, as if there were a case to be answered. I think 41 Deputies either lost their seats and did not seek re-election in the last election; the figure was 43 at the previous election. There is one common factor among retired Deputies. They are usually worse off leaving this House on retirement than when they first came in. The same is true of their families. It is a pretence to suggest some kind of jiggery-pokery's going on in this Parliament by which people enrich themselves, that only for the neophytes now on the Labour benches this enrichment would continue and that we must all declare our possessions to the Clerk of the Dáil so that all these nefarious practices will stop. It is a ludicrous proposition. I do not mind if this is introduced or not, but it will make no difference to anything that happens around here or to the way in which people behave. It will be annoying. If it extends to wives and children it will be a further intrusion into the privacy of politicians' lives.

Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare (Ms Burton)

What about husbands? Some Deputies have husbands, as opposed to just wives.

Mr. Dukes

Spouses. My God, they take themselves seriously — one must be politically correct. They cannot see the wood from the trees.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): It always amuses me that political correctness can run on such a narrow agenda. There is no problem about being correct in gender matters when the Labour Party is hiring its canvassers into positions of power——

Mr. Dukes

No way.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East):——and they do not mind whether they are called husbands, wives, daughters or sons——

Mr. E. Kenny

Programme managers.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East):——or manageresses, advisers or adviseresses because the wider labour socialist movement was always a sexless movement where the whole world was to be free.

Mr. Dukes

And drudgeless.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): As long as one had the Labour Party tag, that guaranteed high standards.

Mr. Dukes

And then give them the money, pay them the salary, it does not matter what gender they are.

Mr. Costello

"Ethics" is the word the Deputy is looking for.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): Are any convenoresses going to be paid at tax-payers' expenses?

Mr. Dukes

Not much chance of that.

An Ceann Comhairle

The time has come to call another speaker.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): I do not think this will make much difference. There are other Australian procedures which will be appropriate to this House.

Mr. Dukes

One is called a boomerang; it comes back and hits you.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): That is going to happen very shortly. I would advise the new Labour Ministers or Ministeresses who are in the House that they would be better employed in seriously addressing the problems of this country, in looking at their own behaviour in Government in the first four weeks of this administration, rather than bringing in these Mickey Mouse proposals.

Ms Burton

Let us be consistent — Minnie Mouse.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): Let me make one final point. The Minister of State, Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald, was chairperson of Dublin County Council. Declarations of interests have been the practice there for a long time, but if one made a a survey of public bodies the one at which the finger of suspicion would point more than any other would be Dublin County Council in the area of land zoning.

Ms Burton

It has a Fine Gael chairperson.

An Ceann Comhairle

I must now call another speaker.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): The Minister of State might reflect on the effect declarations of this nature have had in Dublin County Council for years——

Ms Burton

It has a Fine Gael chairperson.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): What effect have they had anyway?

Ms Burton

The Deputy should direct his comments to the present Fine Gael chairperson of Dublin County Council.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): The Minister of State should not try to personalise the issue, she knows what I am talking about.

Mr. Lawlor

It is unfortunate that sight is being lost of the intent of the debate in the political dogfight that is developing.

When I was on the Committee on Procedure and Privileges Deputy John Bruton was very dynamic in his attempts to reform the workings of the House. The general thrust of what was discussed yesterday was very much in a positive and correct direction. I was part of a small group that set about trying to break the ice and get television into the House. It has been successful, despite the doubts of some colleagues at the time. The whole committee system — I hope it will not be seen only in the light of the grab for chairmanships, convenor posts and so on — enables this Chamber to process its business in a much more dynamic way, with fewer people involved and more work done. It is unfortunate that the debate has started before the Bill has been circulated. It is my hope that the content of that Bill will remove the need for many of the negative comments.

I fully accept what Deputy Dukes said. This matter came up at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges when the then Labour Party put forward a paper on the declaration of interests. As we got into the detail of trying to make it workable and realistic, points began to be raised. For example, if one was lobbied by someone or discussed something should one have to declare that, because it could have an effect on one's judgment? This can quickly come down to a ridiculous level. That needs to be addressed as it is not helpful to genuine public interest.

Deputy Noonan is correct in the points he raised. Many of the difficulties that arose and much so called favouritism that was shown to various advisers left a certain view in the public mind relative to the workings of the political system. That was undesirable and should be addressed. As a result of that my colleague, Deputy Lenihan, suggested that all of those appointments of various people to Government Departments, semi-State companies and so forth, should be put out on a proper tendering basis and that there should be transparency as to why certain people are appointed to undertake certain briefs. Very substantial sums of money are involved right down the line, a declaration of interests by semi-State directors and so forth might have avoided some of the difficulties that eventually arose in some of our State companies.

Colleagues of Deputy Noonan got quite unfair adverse publicity because they held a few shares in oil exploration companies. If we were voting here on preferential terms for oil exploration, whether it was right or wrong, would there be a need for a declaration? Should they have to absent themselves from such votes? For many years there has been great debate in this House about improving aspects of family law and various other legal matters; yet the House was dotted with lawyers. All the practices were possibly likely to benefit from the legislation going through the House. Was that an area where a declaration of interest was necessary? There is a medical practitioner in the House today. The Department of Health Vote comes before us, there are to be changes in some scheme or other, medical practitioners will have to implement those changes. It gets to the stage where it either becomes a farce or it becomes a realistic requirement. I hope that when the Bill emerges the realistic requirement will be the order of the day.

At Deputy level, there should not be concern in the public mind; at ministerial level, there is a necessity to do something. There is at present some formula for Ministers to resign from various involvements. There is a need to ensure there is no overlapping. Deputy Noonan sought an example. There was an unfortunate example of a former colleague of his who became involved in a conflict of interest in this House in regard to some type of financial institution. I would suggest it was in innocence rather than intentionally. That colleague was embroiled in something that was never intended to be incorrect; but it was there and it might have been better to resign from the company.

I was amazed at being embroiled in a controversy in this House in respect of a semi-State company because I had made a full declaration of interests on entering public life. But that does not seem to stop negative political criticism. Deputy Dukes, who has left the House with Deputy Spring and Deputy O'Malley wasted the time of this House accusing me, relative to the Irish Sugar Company, for attending the Munster final in Thurles — I was supposed to be down looking at the sugar company when I was down at the Munster final. That type of nonsense took up the time of this House, a full day's debate. It was totally unjustified. As somebody embroiled personally in that perceived negative criticism I was amazed how it could take legs. If there is to be a register of interests it will have the advantage of transparency and should reassure the minds of the Irish people that there is no cause for concern. I therefore think an Ethics Bill is most desirable and I would fully support it.

I certainly do not support some of the criticisms that were made in this House this morning, but until we see the content of the Bill and can examine it objectively, look at its intent and see how it is to work, I think, unfortunately, that a lot of time is being taken up. It would have been better to see the Bill first. Unfortunate remarks about the Phillipines and personal bank accounts got the debate off to a wrong start and on a lower plane that that on which the issue deserves to be addressed. It deserves to be addressed at a level that will assure the public mind that an Ethics Bill and a declaration of interest will have some effect.

When we discussed the document the Labour Party submitted to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges it became extremely complicated. There was a reference to £600 gifts and so forth, within the political system. Many long serving Members are made presentations by their own party that would possibly be in excess of £600 value. I recall the former Taoiseach, Jack Lynch, returning some gift presented to him by a commercial outlet when he had opened some facility for that company. There was a great debate about the visit of members of the Saudi Royal Family to this country. That would not have happened if there had been a proper formal structure.

This House is trying to catch up on the need for a proper and realistic system of declaration of interests and an Ethics Bill that will have some serious content and meaning. We should not get down to the pettiness that has been evident here. Hopefully, the Bill will be bigger and better than that, and on a higher plane, if we are to justify taking up the time of the House.

Mr. Cox

These proposals have been-badly thought out. Generally, there is no argument in the House about the idea of having a register of interests as an appropriate process, but what has been presented here is seriously deficient. I have been interested in the Disneyland nature of some of the proposals and the discussion about them — Deputy Noonan's comment about them being Mickey Mouse and the Minister's preference for Minnie Mouse. The whole issue of ethics is much bigger than the question of the registration of the Members' interests, which at best is probably peripheral to whatever ethical process will go on within this House and within the political life of this nation. For example, after the election last November the Taoiseach assured the House that he would not make any but the most necessary appointments to State boards. We now know that 600 people were stuffed into State boards by the caretaker administration when it had no ethical basis, nor moral authority and, in a sense, no proper political authority, although, certainly by the strict rule of the law it was able to do that if it so wished.

Mr. Callely

The Deputy should ask Deputy Desmond O'Malley what he did in November.

Mr. Cox

If Deputy Callely has a specific issue in mind I would be happy to raise it with my party Leader. The ethics of government and politics is much more about issues such as that rather than the questions raised in some of this material before us today. I was interested that the Minister in her remarks talked about some confusion arising out of a radio interview which she gave last week. Certainly, that is an economic description of the reaction to the Minister's remarks. Indeed, in respect of this, I might award the Minister the Jackie Healy-Rae prize for communications.

The Minister may know Jackie Healy-Rae, the king of Kilgarvan, a Fianna Fáil councillor in that part of the country. I recall an interview which he gave on a radio programme from Cork about ten or 11 years ago during a crisis period in Fianna Fáil when the then Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey, found himself under some stress with regard to his continuance in high office in that party and when his national executive appeared to have abandoned him. Jackie Healy-Rae was one of the stalwarts who went on the radio to defend the great man against all comers at that time. When he returned to Killarney to a comhairle ceantair meeting on the Friday evening, having given the live radio interview, and found himself the butt of intense criticism among his colleagues, he said: "I want to point out to you that I was misquoted on the radio". It seems that the Minister of State does genuinely deserve the accolade of the Jackie Healy-Rae award for the current session so far.

One obviously reads some very misplaced criticisms about Members of this House in terms of work rate and rates of remuneration, much of it very ill-informed. I am glad to see that the Minister deserves as much in her own contribution here today. If we are going to bring in a register of interests it is important that we should not, like a leper approaching clean society, have to ring a bell as it were, as if we had already in some way offended that society by virtue of the ordinary work we do. In that regard I want to mention a number of issues. On the issue of registrable interests, it is proposed that the name, address and main business of the provider of any benefit received by a member over the previous 12 months for any service has to be registered. This is a sweeping process, devoid of definition. Is it a service for myself as a Member of the House if I consult with people who are lobbying to have changes in the Finance Bill in a few week's time? Is it a service if I talk to someone about putting down a parliamentary question? Is it a service if I talk about introducing a Private Members resolution, having dealt with people?

It seems from this definition that it is unavoidably a service because it derives from the nature of my work as a public representative. If I happen to do that over a pint of Guinness in Buswells, or if I do that over a lunch or a dinner somewhere, is that a benefit? It is defined in such a way that it is unworkable. It would make our work ridiculous. It would leave us open to what Deputy Dukes correctly drew to the Minister's attention as the prospect of entrapment, if it were in someone's interest, whether we knew it or not, to draw us into an engagement and then spring a trap.

The proposal is defined in the absence of any specific or of any de minimis rule. Clearly, where a benefit goes beyond some substantial amount one may raise some questions about the relationship between the Member and his service and someone outside this House. As it stands, the proposal is a disaster and the Minister needs to take it away and think about it again. For example, it goes on to talk about money, property, goods, services, free or subsidised travel or entertainment or the beneficial use of any facilities. If during an election I use someone's office in one street and borrow someone else's personal computer from another place, which is the ordinary background day to day work of a campaign, is that to be trotted out in the annual exposure in Iris Oifigiúil? It is ridiculous. It makes a farce of our work.

With regard to others outside remunerated trades or professionals or so on, declaration of these is standard. If you have other jobs, of course you declare that and you mark that out. But there are other problems as well. With regard to properties, for my own part I can declare on the record that I have one house with a large mortgage. That is the beginning and end of my real property. But, where would the interest be in ethical terms if I had four houses or two farms of land or whatever? How is satisfying a public curiosity about what I own going to impinge on the ethics of my behaviour as a public representative? The case has to be stated. It has not been put forward here today in anything I have heard from the Minister.

I have problems with the proposal that requiries a declaration of the name and address of the donor of any gift, including free or subsidised travel or accommodation, whether the gift was intended for personal or political use, except where the donor is a spouse, a parent, a brother or sister, a child or a step-child. It is too bad if I stay with my uncle when I am up for the Dáil or if I stay with my aunt when I am visiting somebody's constituency because as they are not my parent, brother, sister, child or step-child, it is declarable. It has to go on the register of interests because it is personal, maybe even political, and it is subsidised and hopefully even free, gratis and for nothing.

Mr. Dukes

Especially if they own a hotel.

Mr. Cox

I cannot understand this. It is riddled with difficulty and it invites entrapment, because if you do not declare it and if someone is out to put down a marker against you very quickly the slings and arrows of misfortune would pile in on top of you. Again, there is no de minimis rule. The definition is extremely sweeping to cover politics, personal affairs and everthing, even if the cumulative value of all gifts from that donor over the previous 12 months is less than £600. Taking accommodation for example, if as a non-Dublin Deputy one were to stay with relatives here in Dublin, if they were not the immediate blood line described here as excluded, and if the amount of value is less than £600, why should that be declared? This is nonsense. It is very badly thought out. The Minister should take it away and come back with something credible if she wants to be credible herself.

Mr. Dukes

On a point of order, could it be determined if there is a quorum?

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present.

Mr. E. Walsh

This is my first occasion to speak in Dáil Éireann as a Deputy elected to the constituency of Dublin South-West. I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your elevation to the Chair as Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Thank you Deputy. I wish you well in your maiden speech.

Mr. E. Walsh

I wish to share five minutes of my time with Deputy Costello.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. E. Walsh

The Register of Members' Interests will help to improve public confidence. Through no fault of their own many Deputies come under suspicion that certain aspects of their work are interfered with by various interests. It is unfortunate that that should be implied. It is important, therefore, that the interests of Members are clearly known to everybody so that ambiguities do not arise. Our fragile democratic system depends on the support of the public. Our democratic system is very vulnerable to stresses and strains from various powerful interested groups. With the best will in the world, and human nature being what it is, weaknesses will occur and the Register of Members' Interests will help to identify these powerful interest groups who interfere with the public process.

A balance must be maintained at all times and the question of the rights of Members must be addressed. When putting these measures in place avenues of appeal and redress must be available to Members who consider that their rights may have been interfered with.

When we enter public life we are subject to public scrutiny and it is right and proper that this should be so. To ensure there is a full revelation of our backgrounds and history, registration of our interests should be carried out in a formal way. The Committee on Procedure and Privileges will have responsibility in the area of compliance, queries and complaints. I understand this is only a first step on the road to a more formal arrangement and, therefore, it would be of benefit to this House if Members complied with this request — which is only a request — to show we have nothing to hide in our private lives. When we make a declaration of interests there is a danger it may be misunderstood by the public. I have no doubt all these matters will be dealt with adequately when the Bill comes before the House.

I would like to refer to some comments made from the Opposition benches regarding certain aspects of the need for publicly stating our interests. I would like to remind the House that anybody on social welfare assistance has to undergo a comprehensive examination on his or her personal affairs to establish their means. If we, as public representatives, invade the privacy of the weakest people in society surely the interests of Members of this House should also be subjected to the same scrutiny.

I should like to draw attention to the rezoning which is taking place in the Dublin County Council area, I am a member of that Council. I am not a person who wishes to cast aspersions on any Deputy — because they have a difficult job to do — but as statements have been levelled at the Labour Party I will say that certain members of the Fine Gael Party in Dublin County Council are not acting in the public interest on the question of rezoning. I wish to put that on the record because of the allegations made that the Labour Party is "holier than thou".

When one is in public life certain things have to be done publicly. In order to avoid any confusion about connection with interests or powerful groups, we should state our interests voluntarily. If we are required by law at a later stage, we should state our interests willingly and comply with whatever legislation comes before the House to ensure public confidence, because we would all agree that at this time the House is getting unfair coverage as regards the work which Deputies do here. I would like to see the image of this House improved and this is one way in which that can be done.

Mr. Costello

This is my first contribution to the House and I take the opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I wish you well with your first contribution.

Mr. Costello

The process in which we are engaging is basically a consultative process. We want the Members of this House to discuss the merits and demerits of the proposal in the Joint Programme for Government, namely, to introduce an Ethics Bill in this House and to include in it a Register of Members' Interests.

So far I have not heard anything constructive from the Opposition benches. They feel this is something perverse which has nothing to do with them as if, almost in principle, they are opposed to a declaration of interests. I would like to hear constructive arguments as to why this is not a desirable proposition. I would like to go further and ensure that any appointments made by an outgoing Government are subject to scrutiny by the incoming Government. Any appointments made by an incoming Government should be fully teased out. There is a procedure at present for dealing with these matters, but it is very difficult to deal with appointments made by a previous Administration.

There are three reasons why this proposal is important. We have had a number of controversies in the past which have given rise to considerable concern among the public. Unquestionably, there is public suspicion that this House is not operating above board on all matters. A certain newspaper has been carrying almost daily articles suggesting that abuses are taking place in this House on a constant basis. That is not the case but there is a public perception that politicians are above the law and perpetrate abuses. For that reason, it is important to ensure that the electorate can see that we put in place procedures whereby Deputies' interests are open to public scrutiny. We must be seen not to have sectional interests or to be abusing the powers we are given.

Most western democracies have a registration of members' interests in place. That being so, I cannot see what is wrong with us doing likewise. It is important that it should be properly carried out. All of us who have been members of local authorities will know that there is a registration of local-authority members' interests in place at present. That has not undermined members of local authorities or brought out peeping Toms or any other type of prurient activity by the public, as has been suggested by the Opposition and I do not see why it should do so in the case of the national Parliament.

It is all the more important that we who legislate for the people of this country at the highest level should be seen to be above board at all times. That also includes the intention to bring in the higher civil servants and those who are in authority in semi-State bodies. The point was made by my colleague Deputy Walsh that those at the very lowest level in terms of property and moneys, those on social welfare, have to declare their interests so why should those at the highest level not have to declare their material interests also?

I would like to say, finally, that I want to see this particular item taken in the context of the entire package. We have, in the Programme for Government, a package for openness in government, for an extension of our democracy, for ensuring that there are ethics both in personal terms among members and also in terms of how the whole process of Government takes place. I want to see this as an integrated whole. This is the first stage as discussed in a non-compulsory fashion— as this is a request — how we should go about the registration of Members' interests. We will bring in legislation on this and then go a step further to ensure that the rest of the package is put in place.

Mr. R. Bruton

We are talking about public confidence in this House being weak. One of the things that undermines public confidence more than everything else is the fact that there is no opportunity in this House today to debate Digital, which is sacrificing perhaps 2,500 jobs in Galway. Much of our debate about relevance should focus on the inability of this House and the Deputies therein to really get into the thick of the issues that are causing enormous public concern at the time. I do not want to spend my time debating that, but it is an important aspect of Dáil reform which we will have to address and I hope the new procedures will help us in that.

This proposal for the registration of Members' interests seems to be much more centred on making a statement of Members' property than on really establishing a code of practice and identifying potential areas of abuse of power by Deputies. That should be central if we want to address the issue of potential abuse, or lack of public confidence, or the suspicion that Deputies may be lining their own pockets, as we so often hear said when we call from door to door. We should pin down the areas where Deputies can abuse their power, how they can do it and how we can deal with areas where there is a fear that Deputies may be abusing their power. What is interesting about this register is that one is to make a long statement of interests but the provision for complaints, refers not to complaints about Deputies abusing their position, or having undue influence or gaining in some way, it refers to cases where they failed to list some item either due to forgetfulness or deliberately.

If we are talking about codes of practice for this House we should be talking about setting up a code on the proper way for Deputies to conduct their business and make sure that that is policed rather than just a cold written statement of our interests. That was what was behind Fine Gael's proposal for an ethics commission. Part of the job of that commission would be to establish a code of ethics for Deputies and not just deal with the much narrower issue of registering interest. It also dealt with the issue of publication of interest. It seems to be presumed that all declarations of interest should be published by the Government. This is not necessarily the case. I know that other countries do not always require the publication of these interests. There is the possibility that an ethics commission would have access to the register and not necessarily publish it all. They would be acting in the interest of the public to make sure that there was no abuse of power and they would certainly have access to the full facts. That is worthy of examination.

I thought it was a little naive of Labour Party speakers to link this issue to the declaration made by persons making means-tested claims.

Mr. Ferris

What is naive about that? It is the reality on the ground.

Mr. R. Bruton

The reality on the ground is that that is happening, but to bring it into a debate——

Mr. Ferris

It is the same thing.

Mr. R. Bruton

It is not the same thing.

Mr. Dukes

It is totally different.

Mr. R. Bruton

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I would like to have your protection from interruption. If I was applying for a means-tested grant I would have to list the full details of my bank account, for example.

Mr. E. Walsh

One has to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy, without interruptions.

Mr. R. Bruton

According to the Labour Party Minister we are not being asked to list the value of our property in this declaration. It is, in my view, a cheap political way of trying to score points rather than addressing the central issue that is here before us today.

Mr. Ferris

The Fine Gael Party spokesman said today——

Mr. R. Bruton

If we want to restore public confidence, as other speakers have quite rightly said, we must address the way in which appointments are made. Are wrongful appointments being made to State boards? The answer is undoubtedly, yes. Wrongful appointments are being made to State boards of people who have little or nothing to do with an ability to improve the performance of those boards.

I would like to turn to another aspect. Deputy Costello, who has unfortunately left the House, said there was no evidence of prurient interest and that this could not be a problem. I would have to say, from personal experience, that I was subjected, both inside and outside this House, under the protection of privilege, to innuendo and accusations that had no foundation, based solely on the fact that I had a declared interest in a property. I was subjected by another Deputy to what I would regard as unfair innuendo which, obviously, did political damage. We have to be conscious here, and the Minister of State particularly should be conscious, that any such declaration of interest can be used wrongly by political opponents to damage another politician. If you do not think that is the case, I could explain to you that it is. Any register must be accompanied by some system to handle misuse of the information declared. If people come into this House and use a register of interest to cast a slur on the contribution of another Deputy and that does not stand up, that is an equally serious offence. If an accusation of abuse of power is made based on a register, there must be some defence and redress for a Deputy who feels he or she has been unfairly treated. One could say we have recourse to the courts, but the reality is that we are goldfish in a goldfish bowl and if we went to the courts, the electorate would regard this as wasting time and as being foolish. The electorate's estimation of politicians is quite low and to think of having recourse to the courts if politicians choose to use this register of interest to abuse one another across the floor of the House would be wrong. We have to look at that aspect of a Register of Members' Interests.

I am all in favour of a declaration of interests and a code of ethics being put in place so that our behaviour can be fully above board. There is much here that is quite correct but we have to be conscious that these things are double edged swords and they can be equally used to discourage people from coming into this House if they see the system being abused and people being subjected to criticism and innuendo because of interests they may have.

In conclusion, I would like to mention some other matters relative to Dáil reform. I have served on many committees of this House and particularly of late, on the Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies. It appals me to see the lack of support we receive in our efforts to get to grips with those issues. In the last two to three years there have been enormous scandals in semi-State bodies. The committee established on behalf of the public to oversee these matters has not been involved in any way simply because it does not have the necessary resources. There is an army of public servants in the Department of Finance who oversee Estimates and public sector bodies but the committee of elected people do not have a single professional person to help them examine the accounts or affairs of semi-State bodies. If we are serious about Dáil reform and establishing committees, which should be more than just worthless talking shops and opportunities for politicians to get a little exposure, they will have to be seriously resourced.

I welcome the establishment of legislative committees but I seriously urge the Government to bring to those committees the head of Bills rather than more advanced measures which maybe very difficult to amend in committees, having received much consideration and commitment already. It would be very valuable for a Government to bring the heads of Bills to committees of this nature who would have detailed consultation on the matter before framing final proposals. If that was done these committees would be more meaningful and more available.

Mr. Dukes

On a point of order, I would like to call a quorum.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present: House counted and 20 Members being present.

Mr. Ferris

I wish to share my time with my colleague, Deputy Kavanagh. I notice that most of the Fine Gael Members are missing now. This process is one of consultation, initiated by the Minister of State, Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald. It is the first time we have had this type of consultative process whereby before legislation is prepared and brought before this House for debate the Government decided they would try to get a reflection of the views of people involved in the Dáil.

The view is held by the public that Members of this House are overpaid and underworked and that they have all sorts of constitutional privileges. Members of local authorities — Deputy Dukes has never had the privilege of being a member of a local authority and therefore would not have been aware of this fact — are required to disclose their interests.

Mr. Dukes

I learned that at an early age.

Mr. Ferris

The Deputy never had the privilege of being a member of a local authority, therefore he was not aware that local authority members, including politicians of all persuasions, had to declare their interests on the day they were elected. There has been no problem in that regard. As my colleague, Deputy Eamon Walsh, said, since social welfare recipients are subjected to all sorts of means testing and interrogation by social welfare officers who stand outside their door to see whether they are actually working in their own home rather than seeking work, as such regulations are set down for people on the margins of society, what is wrong with the concept of all of us disclosing our interests? We have been at pains in the Labour Party particularly because we are under interrogation from the Opposition, to point out that we are not obsessed with the question of people disclosing their interests.

The beef tribunal and every other forum set up have showed that the Labour Party have nothing to hide in terms of any political or financial gain or involvement. Deputy Dukes may applaud, but his party is not exempt in this regard. We have an obligation to ensure that people believe what they see and hear. The Minister said she has no intention of requiring that people disclose their personal bank accounts, or their overdrafts which is more likely the case, or indeed that of their spouses. Her position has been misrepresented in the media — on the airwaves and in print. At present there is a system of voluntary declaration of interests. The views of Deputy Dukes and other Opposition Deputies will be taken into account in the operation of a statutory registration of people's interests.

Mr. M. McDowell

There will not be statutory control.

Mr. Ferris

Deputy McDowell has magnificent interests outside this House and maybe people would like to know what they are. The interests of people in this House should be open to public scrutiny. I represent the constituency of South Tipperary and I have no financial interests to declare.

Mr. M. McDowell

On a point of order, is it in order for the Deputy to accuse me of having interests outside this House without specifying them? I invite him to do so now or to retract his accusation.

Mr. Ferris

Everybody knows that the Deputy is a barrister and an able member of the Bar. That is an interest that he has.

Mrs. Owen

Deputy McDowell did not hide that fact.

Mr. Ferris

I did not suggest that he is hiding his interests.

Mr. M. McDowell

Of course I have interests.

Mr. Ferris

Of course the Deputy has interests outside the House.

Mr. M. McDowell

How many acres of land does the Deputy have?

Mr. Ferris

There are Deputies here who are members of trade unions, and of branches——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Please allow the Deputy to continue.

Mr. Ferris

——of the Labour Party and we have had no difficulty with that. I do not know why the Opposition are so sensitive about the public knowing what their interests are. People have interests outside of the House, so why not disclose those interests?

Mr. Dukes

The Deputy is a good socialist. He has two shirts.

Mr. Ferris

I have, and they are both mine. Neither of them belongs to the Deputy. I have no apology to make to the Deputy. I own my two shirts and I have paid for them. Would the Deputy like to borrow one? There were many times when budgets brought in by the Deputy's party in Government meant that hair shirts were the fashion.

Mr. Dukes

The Deputy's shade of blue would not suit very many people.

Mr. Ferris

If Deputies want to invite members of the Labour Party to comment on our ability to disclose our interests publicily I can tell them we have no problem with that. If anybody else has problems the Minister is prepared to listen before making this a statutory requirement. We will try to accommodate all reservations from that side of the House. We have no problems whatsoever.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Ferris

We have no reservations whatsoever.

Mr. M. McDowell

The Government will not make this a statutory requirement. It will never do that.

Mrs. Owen

The Deputy is only codding.

Mr. Ferris

I am not in a position to respond.

An Leas-Cheann Comhaorle

The Deputy should speak through the Chair.

Mr. Ferris

The Government made a commitment in the Programme for Government that a Bill would be introduced in this regard, and there will be a requirement on all Members of Government to support it.

Mr. M. McDowell

The Minister, Deputy Michael Higgins, was put in charge of developments at Mullaghmore, and that made quite a difference.

Mr. Ferris

The Deputy knows as well as I do that Deputy Michael Higgins was not a Minister when work commenced at Mullaghmore.

Mrs. Owen

The Deputy does not seem to have read the Programme for a Partnership Government.

Mr. Ferris

I suggest that Opposition Members read the Programme for a Partnership Government which contains the commitment of the two parties in Government to what we want to do. It will not be like the last arrangement where one side was always on the run. This programme was put in place to last and all of us have a commitment to it.

Mrs. Owen

Is it as firm as the comitment to the Tallaght hospital?

Mr. Ferris

We said during the election campaign that——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I trust, Deputy Owen, when you wish to address the House Deputies will be more orderly.

Mrs. Owen

I would be able to cope if they were not.

Mr. Ferris

The Labour Party, when contesting the recent election, said we want to put trust back into politics. The Bill is a step towards putting the people's trust who elected us back into political life. It is perceived, correctly or incorrectly, that Members have privileges and have advance information on certain matters which they use for the benefit of themselves or their party.

Mr. Dukes

Which committee will be chaired by the Deputy?

Mr. Ferris

We want to eliminate that perception. We have no apology to offer to anyone. I am delighted the Minister of State is proceeding down the road of consultation before putting the Bill into operation. It is hoped that the Opposition will be able to meet the requirements in that Bill. I have no doubt they will, but they are squealing today and that concerns me.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I call Deputy Kavanagh. Your colleague has left you three minutes.

Mr. Kavanagh

Deputy Ferris was doing very well on his own. He does not seem to need my help.

Mrs. Owen

The Deputy should allow Deputy Ferris to finish.

Mr. Kavanagh

I think nobody could be against a register of interests. If they are they must have interests to hide, otherwise they would be in favour of it.

Mr. Dukes

I never thought the Deputy to be a peeping Tom.

Mr. Kavanagh

Deputy Dukes knows my interests are very few, therefore it is easy for me to demand a full register. When I register my Allied Irish Bank statement people will make a collection for me.

Mr. Dukes

The Minister would not allow the Deputy that pleasure. Bank accounts are being excluded.

Mr. Kavanagh

I was privileged to represent this country in the European Parliament and I believe there are more wealthy people there than there are in this House.

Mr. Dukes

Some of them socialists, as well.

Mr. Kavanagh

Some are socialists and many are Christian Democrats.

Mr. Dukes

Some are more equal than others. The Deputy would not have to look far in his own party to recognise that.

Mr. Kavanagh

When the Socialist group demanded a register of interests there was no difficulty in acceding to that demand. It was thought that with the influence of the European Parliament on the huge amount of moneys spent by the Commission there might be some embarrassment, but there was no problem in regard to people disclosing their interests. I cannot understand why suddenly people here are so concerned about this initiative by the Government. I thought this matter was fully accepted on all sides of the House. Obviously, we could have a register that is so weak and undemanding that people would accept it, but what the Minister is proposing here is quite reasonable. It is important that there be a register of interests.

In that way there will be much more transparency about the work and the interests of people in activities, some of which received publicity in the House this week. We know of the great interest people have in these activities and why they do not favour such a register. Having fought an election recently we know that influence that can be brought to bear on Deputies or prospective Deputies to push particular issues. I hope the Minister will proceed with this register so that we can see how matters are influenced by personal interest.

Mr. Currie

We all accept that for some considerable time we have been getting a bad press, fairly or unfairly. Some of it has been unfair, coming from people who, in the operation of Parliament and parliamentary procedures, would not know their rear end from a hole in the ground. However, some criticism, unfortunately, has been merited and we have to take that criticism seriously. This is a subject on which I have spoken on a number of occasions. I have been very concerned about the cynicism in relation to politicians and political institutions. I have spoken on this subject on a number of occasions and possibly I appear to be more concerned about it than others because of my previous political experience in another part of this island. Undoubtedly the ordinary man in the street does not think too highly of us and of this House.

I have said before that in the northern part of this island we know where the threat to democratic institutions comes from: it comes from the people with the bomb and the bullet. The cynicism that has developed and is increasing almost every day in this part of the island in relation to politicians is even more dangerous and is a greater threat to our parliamentary democracy than are those who are involved with the gun and the bomb. I mean that seriously, and I do not think I am a Cassandra, a merchant or a prophet of doom. It behoves all of us in this House to pay attention to that cynicism, particularly in working class, disadvantaged areas, but to an increasing extent even in middle class areas as well.

The Government Chief Whip, when moving this motion, spoke about the necessity for a root and branch approach. These proposals do not represent a root and branch approach. They represent a tinkering with a system which is anachronistic, which is not relevant to the political conditions of today. We have a job to do to make this House and our work here relevant to the needs of the last part of the 20th century and everything must be seen to be above board. That is the job we have to do. Today there are not too many Deputies in the Chamber. Four quorums have been called for in the past hour.

Mr. Killeen

When will the next one be called?

Mr. Currie

When I finish. That is not an unusual occurrence on a Friday in any parliamentary democracy. If the Deputy was in Westminister today, a similar situation would obtain. I am pleasantly surprised there are so many people available to contribute to this debate, particularly members of the Opposition. Any so-called root and branch examination of this matter will have to bear in mind certain issues that would not be relevant when one considers that in all parliamentary institutions people are not present on a Friday. Members tend to be absent on a Friday. In Westminister an MP is considered a hard worker if he arrives in his constituency to hold a clinic once a month. There are particular reasons why we have bad attendance here on a Friday and occasionally on a Thursday. If we are to have a thorough examination of the workings of our Parliament we must address the matter of multi-member constituencies which have the effect of keeping people in their constituencies rather than in this House. We must examine dual membership, not dual membership between here and the European Parliament but between here and local councils. Those two matters must be examined if we are to make any fundamental change of the type the Minister is suggesting.

I welcome the extension of the committee system. I do not understand why Ministers will not be required to be present at those committees. If they cannot take the heat they should get out of the kitchen. It is absurd that the main actors in relation to these committees will not be forced to attend. It is a necessity that Ministers should be present.

I do not understand the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, with its restriction on discussing political and security issues relating to Northern Ireland, particularly as any member of the Government can rule that certain issues cannot be discussed before those committees. It is ridiculous that Northern Ireland MEPs are to be asked to attend these committees. Why should Mr. Paisley or Mr. John Hume attend these committees if political and security matters are not discussed, particularly in circumstances where it is now recognised——

Acting Chairman (Mr. Ferris)

I do not want to interrupt the Deputy but that matter was debated yesterday. This particular section of the debate is confined to Members' interests.

Mr. Currie

I know that but I was not able to speak yesterday.

Acting Chairman

I am trying to be helpful to the Deputy.

Mr. Currie

I will also try to be helpful to you, Sir. In circumstances where those matters cannot be debated and where it is generally accepted that any solution to the Northern Ireland problem lies in a European Community context, how can these matters be debarred from discussion?

Deputy Lenihan, as chairman of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, will have a difficult job deciding what is and is not in order when Mr. Paisley says that he cannot differentiate between political matters and the European Community. The rule is ludicrous and it should be deleted. Regarding the chairmanship of the committees and the Government's insistence on being in control of them, where is the proportionality in this regard? Where is the generosity? What will the Tánaiste and the Minister for Justice complain to the Unionists when they next meet about how the Unionists have taken control of all the committees in Belfast Corporation? The Unionists are insisting on majority rule in any new assembly in Northern Ireland. What will they say in that situation? They will say, "Take the mote out of your own eye first". The Unionists would say that if they were daft enought to join a united Ireland, is this the generosity our majority would show to them? That is a matter of some relevance.

I would like to refer to the register of interests which, unfortunately, is symbolic. My difficulty with it is that it does not appear to mean very much. The Fine Gael proposal of an ethics commission is more relevant and meaningful. Deputy McDowell, on the "Pat Kenny Show" this morning, referred to brown paper bags. I have been wondering what service available to me in this House would make it worthwhile for anybody to give me brown paper bags. We should all consider that. I can understand why Ministers might be made such offers. Members of local authorities might be approached also in relation to certain planning proposals. I am in favour of stopping corruption and having the highest possible integrity in public life. We must take steps to bring that about. This proposed register will not be sufficient to do that.

I would like to make some general points in relation to how we can improve our stature among the general public. This House is supposed to be the focal point of our democracy and yet almost every major statement on any issue is made outside this House. Any Minister making an important statement should be obliged to do so inside the House so that the public will be aware that this is the centre of our democracy.

Mr. M. McDowell

The Minister of State announced her proposals outside the House.

Mr. Currie

For example, we should introduce the "give way" procedure that exists in Westminister so that a debate can take place which will give me an opportunity to ask the Minister, or whoever, to give way and allow an exchange of views across the House.

The dependence on scripts by Members of this House is deplorable. I understand why Ministers and front bench members need scripts. I realise that scripts will be required in the budget debate, but why do so many of us read from scripts in this House? People can read out scripts and make no impact in this House, but put them on a platform down the country without a script and they become great speakers. If we abandon the scripts we will improve the stature of this House.

Mr. Flood

I am delighted to have the opportunity to participate in this important debate. I compliment the Minister of State, Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald, for introducing the debate in the manner in which she did. As previous speakers have said, too often we are presented with a fait accompli in the form of a Bill with little or no opportunity to have any realistic input regarding changes which might be required in the Bill.

One of the important points for me, is that I am honoured to be a Member of the House and to have served a short while as a Minister of State. In public life I recognise that one must sacrifice much of one's personal privacy and, to an extent, the privacy of one's family. It is that area that I wish to address in relation to the proposals which we are now discussing.

I value my privacy in so far as I have it. Certain aspects contained in these proposals will impinge greatly, as far as I am concerned, on the right to privacy of my immediate family. It is for that reason that certain elements should not be included in relation to property registration and so on. In considering cases made by Members in the debate the Minister might look at how she can exclude aspects of a person's private interests that are not relevant to this set of proposals. Public representatives, and particularly Members of this House, are entitled to retain some semblance of privacy in their own lives and only that which needs to be known ought to be made known in the context of what we are discussing today about the publication of such interests in Iris Oifigiúil.

Some speakers mentioned that we are the subject of much unfair media coverage. That is true. In the last couple of weeks particularly virulent campaigns have been waged in relation to comments about Members of this House and their attention to their work. A number of quorums have been called this morning. I have been sitting in my office listening to the debate but also working, partly on my contribution here and on other matters also. While working in my office I have been very much tuned into the debate and I have heard all the contributions this morning. The fact that I was in my office did not necessarily mean I was ignoring the debate but, unfortunately, that is the type of situation that is not picked upon by those who are ill-informed in relation to the comments concerning the workings of this House, the commitment of all Members to that work and, in particular, in relation to today's debate. I am sure in the headlines tomorrow some reference will be made to the fact that only so many Members were present in the Chamber at any one time during the course of this important debate. Many of us have been following the debate very carefully. We have contributions to make with only a short time available to cover all the ground that we would wish to.

In relation to registration of interests, the availability of that information to members of the media will have a major effect on the public relations of this House. Individuals in the media will examine Iris Oifigiúil to see if everything is above board and will spend much time writing about different aspects of Members' interests. This gives rise to the type of situation referred to in this debate which has been taking place in the media regarding the behaviour of Members in this House over the last couple of weeks.

This issue should have been approached in a different way. I realise the Minister was under a time constraint because in the Programme for a Partnership Government there is a reference to the introduction in February of this year of this aspect of ethics in Government. Obviously the Minister did not have much time to flesh it out as much as she might have liked. However, she will have some time before the Bill is brought before the House to take account of our views. My approach would have been to set down a code of practice for Members in relation to the conduct of their affairs, any work they are involved in outside, or representations they are considering. Members would be obliged to work to that code of practice and penalties would be imposed if we were found to be in breach of that code. This would be not just an itemised list of our interests, be they very large or small, but we would be told clearly by the committee of this House that the best way to deal with any conflict of interest would be to adhere strictly to a code of practice. Where Members were found to be in breach of that code of practice the appropriate penalties would be imposed.

I have had an opportunity to go through the proposals, several sections of which concern me and I pose the question as to whether they should be included. I assume that one's private house must be a registered interest because it refers to property. However, I do not see why I should have to declare whether I own or rent my home. That should not be of interest to anybody, it is not their business as far as my family is concerned. There are areas in the proposals that have a great deal of merit, those relating to the declaration of interests in shares, directorships and so on. I can understand that approach. In general, the proposals are intrusive not just into the private life of a Member but of the Member's family. The challenge facing the Minister of State as she finalises her proposals in this regard will be to ensure that we, as public representatives, act in the public good — if she is determined to proceed along the lines outlined in her speech this morning — while at the same time protecting, in so far as possible, the private lives of Members of this House. It will become increasingly obvious that individuals will decide not to enter public life at any level if at the end of the day all aspects of their private lives regarding ownership of property, etc., are to be open to public scrutiny. This is true of being open to those in the media who have little else to do but focus attention on public representatives and the properties and interests they hold.

Other wider issues ought to be addressed also and it is disappointing they do not appear in the proposals from the Minister of State. For example, in our public broadcasting arena, be it radio or television, there are individuals who daily make whatever comments they wish about this House, its Members and their activities. It is difficult to reverse the effect of these statements once they are made. If one listens carefully to these statements — without naming any individual commentator in the airways — one will find that some of them are very harsh and inaccurate. There is nothing in these proposals to deal with that situation. When a statement is made in the press that is later proven to be incorrect it is difficult to reverse the effect of that erroneous statement. It never actually happens because the people who heard or read the statement do not necessarily read or hear the retraction. One finds oneself in the position of having to defend oneself on the basis of an inaccurate statement. I would like the Minister of State to examine more broadly all those issues, not just as they affect Members of this House but other people in the public arena also who are in privileged positions.

Mr. Gilmore

One would think from some of the contributions this morning that the idea of a declaration of interests is something new and unique in its application to Members of the Oireachtas. The concept of a declaration of interests has been in existence in this State for a long time and has been introduced and operated by Government Ministers with the approval of this House in relation to many categories of people in this country.

The Minister of State referred earlier to the system which exists in local authorities for the declaration of interests. This has not entirely prevented public life at local authority level being devoid of concern regarding impropriety of practice, particularly in regard to property and planning matters. The principle has been implemented for years by Government Ministers for some of our poorest people. Every day of the week people applying for modest social welfare benefits, medical cards and students grants have to declare their interests in the minutest detail. Applicants for even the smallest social welfare allowances are often subjected to the most humiliating form of financial strip searching.

Deputy Dukes expressed concern about peeping Toms. He might be well advised to take a look at some of the welfare police who engage in activities of peeping Toms. Single parents on a lone parent's allowance find themselves subjected to a scrutiny of the most minute details of their personal and private relationships. That peeping Tom activity has existed here for a very long time. We have heard very little of the indignation that appears to apply selectively to the issue before us today.

The question of the declaration of interests has to do with possible conflict of interest. Deputy Lawlor referred to the questions of oil exploration. It is perfectly in order that Ministers and Members of this House involved in making decisions regarding, for example, the issuing of oil exploration licences should have to declare whether they are shareholders in oil companies. I reject emphatically some of the hype and commentary outside this House which creates and fuels the impression that people in public life are all on the make, that they are all crooks and that special rules have to be devised for them. I have no doubt there are some people in public life as in every walk of life, whose conduct is less than exemplary. No political party in this House has a monopoly in regard to integrity or dishonesty in the matter of their dealings.

It has been my experience that the vast majority of people involved in public life, either in this House or at local authority level, irrespective of which political persuasion they are, are people of the highest integrity. It is about time we asserted that fact more strongly. I resent very much the kind of monosyllabic journalism that has been engaged in by some sections of the media in relation to people in public life and to the practice of politics. These journalists attend here once in a blue moon, take a look over the parapet of the press gallery and go out and write two or three pages declaring nobody was present. These people have no understanding of and do not bother to understand the practice of politics or the normal day to day work of this House. Broadcasters, some of whom earn up to ten times the salary of a Member of this House, between interviews with, perhaps, members of the Progressive Democrats, find time to make swinging attacks on the practice of politics. It is time that exercise was rejected.

I accept that this House and the recent practice of politics has a bad image. If a register of interests goes some way towards establishing that professional politicians are prepared to declare their interests in public, it will be useful. However, it goes beyond the question of this House because the locus of power in society does not entirely rest in Parliament, and I regret that. For example, are we not entitled to know whether member's of the Judiciary, who daily hand down judgments, have private interests which may influence their judgments? Are we to assume that they are entirely above the normal influence that are deemed to apply to other people, including people who practice politics? Are we not entitled to know the interests of financial journalists who in the course of a story may decide whether a share goes up or down? Speculation about shares, for example, can cause the most remarkable swing in the fortunes of a company. Are we not entitled to know whether or not the financial journalists who write about this matter have an interest in that area? Are we not entitled to know whether there is some relationship between those who own the media and those who own other private interests and whether the stories that appear are influenced in some way?

I will have no difficulty in declaring my half share in a semi-detached house when this register is established. However, there is another side to this debate which is often forgotten, that is the consequences of election to public office. On my first day as a Member of this House I learned that I would be denied the occupation which I had held for 12 years previously if I were to be defeated in a subsequent election or to leave this House for one reason or other. The point was made earlier about Members of this House leaving it poorer than they were on entering it and I do not doubt that is the case in many instances.

I would ask the Minister, when introducing legislation on the registration of Members' interests, to give some consideration to the protection of citizens who stand for public election and offer themselves to serve the public in the democratic institutions of this State, against political or personal vindictiveness which may cause them to be disadvantaged. People elected to this House should not be placed in a privileged position as against any other citizen of the State but neither should they be placed at a disadvantage as a result of their election to the House, having opted to serve the public in that way.

I support the introduction of a register of Members' interests, although it will not eliminate all the speculation or concern that exists. People who are of the opinion that politicians are crooks will continue to believe that, and politicians who are crooks will continue to be so, whether or not there is a register of Members' interests.

Mr. Davern

It has been often said that the first time you put your name forward for election to this House you are idealistic, the second time, you are egotistical, the third time, you are a masochist and the fourth time you just do not want the other guy to beat you. That is the atmosphere that has prevailed in this House over a period of time. The Chair said the Minister was misinterpreted. I regret the manner in which the Minister raised this issue and the unfortunate remarks she passed about it. I have been a Member of this House since 1969, and the remarks in regard to the Marcos regime deeply hurt me and, I am sure, former Members of the House. I know it was an off-the-head remark but such remarks result in people who are very cynical about politicians, believing that these activities take place. The Minister was referring to a dictator, a military person who had millions of dollars stored away. The position of many former Members of this House, is not similar to that portrayed.

The Minister's father-in-law once accused me in this House of nepotism when a relation of mine was appointed as a guide on the Rock of Cashel. I had to explain very carefully to Dr. FitzGerald that my grandmother came from a family of 21 while my grandfather came from a family of 13 and they had a family of 14, each of whom had nine children. Therefore everyone within a stone's throw of me, was a 5th, 6th, 7th, or 8th cousin. When one is a TD one has many relations whereas when one is down and out the position is different.

Mr. Gilmore

That explains it.

Mr. Davern

I am still under 50 years old, though not showing it. The tenor on which this debate began was unfortunate. The Chair implied today that bank accounts would be looked at. That would not only be a great invasion of privacy but a danger to Members who may be exposed to unscrupulous people who use that information for the benefit of their organisation. I agree there should be some form of declaration of interest. I had no problem declaring my interests to the local authority, of which I was a member — the interests declared were not mine but those of my wife.

Where do we stop when it comes to this matter? The Minister must consider the guidelines as they refer to travel and expenses. For example, should those of us who go to hurling matches on Sundays state that we travelled with three different people in the last month? The guidelines will have to be much more clearly defined because there is an implication that something is wrong.

I have a great interest, as a punter, in horses. I compliment Deputy Dukes for reducing betting tax when he was Minister. It was the best decision ever made because people suddenly started paying tax.

Mr. Dukes

Matched in wisdom only by the reduction in the excise duty on spirits.

Mr. Davern

I lobbied the previous Minister for Finance, Deputy Reynolds, now Taoiseach, for more money for horse racing so as to ensure that national hunt racing would be maintained. If in future I get a tip from a trainer and win, should I report my winnings? The implications of this measure are extremely wide.

Mr. Currie

Will you tell me first?

Mr. Davern

I continually get tips because I do not pass them on. Deputy Gilmore is correct in saying that public representatives give up much of their privacy. The criticism we have received in the last couple of weeks, particularly in the Star, has been most despicable. I see no representative of the Star on the press gallery today. Should we question why that is so? That type of criticism of Members does nothing for democracy or for the status of the country.

I agree with the point made by Deputy Gilmore in relation to journalism. The editor of a newspaper may have great influence through the editorial. Should he declare his interest, which may be a private interest? It has been said that people who have tremendous influence pass off-the-cuff, lambasting remarks not only about politicians but also about business people. Should these people be subject to a declaration of interests?

This should apply not only to politicians but also to people on the public airwaves and in the media. If a register is introduced for politicians only, the impression may be given that we have something to hide. I have no problem declaring my interests. I do outside work for a company for which I get remuneration. That work is declared and I pay tax on it. I will put that fact on the register of interests, but I do not agree with the wide-sweeping arrangements that apply.

If a friend gives me his holiday home for a weekend do I have to declare that? Do I have to declare that I received a bottle of whiskey or that I was treated to lunch to which I was invited to discuss legislation about which the person wishes to make representation? I have no problem with a declaration of private interests but how far should it go? Will it include my children's affairs and, if so, why? Once they leave home at 18 or 21 years of age their affairs should be an entirely separate matter. Will it include the affairs of one's brothers or sisters? As was mentioned by one speaker this morning if your uncle gives you a present of a piece of Waterford glass worth £600 do you have to report that?

This matter has been badly thought out. It needs to be more clearly defined. Above all, it should not be based on the assumption that Members are dishonest. The vast majority of people I have known in this House since 1969 — only 17 Members remain, from that time—have been honourable in any dealings I have had with them. I am not aware of any impropriety on their part or that their financial status improved as a result of entering this House.

It is time we questioned political interest in radio and television programmes. People's political philosophy should be declared in the credits before or after a programme. In some cases certain people in a town or area are deliberately sought out for interview because they are friends of friends within a wider political circle.

I understand it is the Minister's intention to require that Members declare the name of the bank in which they have their account, although they do not have to declare their accounts. That is unfair. Will politicians have to declare the name of the company from which they received their car loan, whether it be Woodchester, Ulster Finance or Bank of Ireland Finance or Allied Irish Banks? That would be unnecessary. The approach to this legislation is based on the assumption that Members of this House have been in some way disreputable in the past, but that is a misleading approach. Future guidelines should be based on the assumption that people on declaring their interests do not have to go beyond the bounds of privacy.

Mr. Boylan

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important matter. I resent and feel insulted by the undertones contained in this proposal. I speak not only for myself and Members of this House whom I have worked with since 1987 but for former Members who were responsible for building the institutions of this State and gave sterling service, people who are not here to defend their good name. These people made a great sacrifice. I resent the implication in the Minister's proposal that these people were here on a rip-off, on a gravy train. Nothing could be further from the truth. They were honourable, decent men and women from all political parties, who did their very best, and we should be proud of them. I know former Members who sacrificed their families and lost their businesses to serve the public in Dáil Éireann because they had an interest in working for the greater good of people. These people are not here to defend themselves.

I have been a member of a local authority since 1974 and I know many people who voluntarily offer to serve their community. The Minister would do much better to look at the return these people are getting and which it is proposed to cut. We are reaching a stage where unless people are well heeled they will not be in a position to serve the community at local authority level because it is becoming too costly. The Minister is contemplating cutbacks in the meagre expenses of these people. My financial standing inside or outside this House is nobody's business. It is my private affair and that of my family, and I will not disclose it to the Minister.

Constitutionally, people have an opportunity every five years to put their names forward for election and I admire those who have the courage to do so. Many never make it but they continue to work for the party or cause they support. If people do not like the person who is serving them they have an opportunity in the privacy of the ballot box to decide they want a change. Likewise with the local authority, the opportunity to become a member arises every five years.

The purpose of this measure and the manner in which it was presented to the public is to divert attention from the real rot in this House as exemplified by the activities of the Government who are hardly out of nappies. They smell to the high heavens in their activities and the Labour Party are party to that. Fianna Fáil never made any secrecy after an election of jobs for the boys, the Mickey Dohertys of the Fianna Fáil Party. The Labour Party are not interested in jobs for the boys or girls who worked for them in the last election but in jobs for their immediate families. However, they will be looking for those people when the next election is called.

The Office of Tánaiste was created because the Tánaiste could not become a part-time Taoiseach. Today's paper, if we are to trust the press — I am sure the figures are close enough — states that more than £800,000 of taxpayers' money was spent on the Tánaiste's office. People cannot meet their commitments and cannot get jobs, yet money is wasted on that office for the purpose of satisfying someone's ego. The cost of the adviser to the adviser to the adviser to the Government is estimated at £2.5 million. For what purpose? Matters are getting worse. There is no point in the Labour Party saying it has not been long in Government and have had no opportunity to take action. It had an opportunity when the election was called. That is the ethics people are looking to. People sought change but the Labour Party did an about-turn and spent two weeks or more wasting time talking to a party that does not count.

Acting Chairman

I would remind the Deputy that this debate is about Members' interests.

Mr. Boylan

That is correct, and about activities and ethics in this House. It is about the activities of people who say one thing outside and do another when they come in here, away from the electorate. People were let down in terms of the party for whom they voted. The country is in debt and people are beginning to lose heart at the thought that we will never repay that debt.

My financial standing is my business and the financial standing of any person in this House is their business. The Minister of State could be of service to Members of this House by spelling out once and for all for the media the exact take home pay of Members. It is portrayed that we receive £30,000, £40,000 or £50,000 plus expenses. There are huge costs involved for public representatives. People continually knock on our doors looking for sponsorship for charitable causes — they believe that if they receive £20 from the local TD, hopefully their neighbours will match it. I accept that in many cases these are good causes but there is a limit to what we can do. Many people are broke as a result of supporting such causes, yet they feel they must do so. Maybe this fact could be put on record rather than creating the image that there is a rip-off and the people here are not doing their job.

The media say we are not doing our job because we are not present in the House. It is no problem for Members to fill these benches when the Dáil is sitting. However, we would soon lose touch with the people outside whom we contact from our offices. That is what people expect of us. To legislate one must know what the problems are. We would soon be removed from these problems if we were to satisfy the press and sit in the Chamber all day. The public do not understand the position because the myth has been created that if Members are not in the Chamber, they are elsewhere. That is the rubbish. A person's private life and private financial standing is his or her own business. I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to put the record straight once and for all.

It would be a sad day that successful business people would not put themselves forward for membership of this House because they would have to register their interests, and thereby jeopardise their business. We need these people, whether they be bankers, businessmen or farmers. It would be wrong that only people who are unemployed, with no other position in life, would represent us in the House. Therefore, we should think twice before passing this legislation. I ask the Minister of State to put on record that people who have served in this House from the foundation of the State have nothing to be ashamed of, that there is no question that they ever made off with anything other than what they were entitled to — indeed that was meagre enough and still is at present.

Acting Chairman

I now call Deputy Eoin Ryan.

Mr. Dukes

On a pointy of order, we should find out if many members of the Government would like to hear Deputy Ryan. I call for a quorum.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present.

Mr. E. Ryan

As we are talking about Dáil reform, perhaps we should introduce reform in regard to continually calling for quorums. This carry-on was rare in the Seanad. It is childish behaviour which should not continue.

Miss Flaherty

That anybody should go on without a quorum is outrageous.

Mr. E. Ryan

Maybe Deputy Dukes is taking The Star newspaper too seriously. I do not know how many quorums he has called this morning.

Mr. Dukes

The more the Deputy squeals, the more he encourages me.

Mr. E. Ryan

I am not squealing; I am pointing out that this is very trivial behaviour.

Mr. Dukes

On a point of order, as the Deputy seems to think this is trivial, let us see how many other members of the Government party think it is so.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present.

Mr. E. Ryan

I will not encourage Deputy Dukes further. I will have my day with him sometime.

Mr. Dukes

I look forward to that.

Mr. E. Ryan

I welcome in principle this proposed legislation and the new regulations. Like other Members, I believe politicians must have high standards and they must be seen to have high standards. In so far as the regulations and the legislation are an improvement they are welcome. They may help to dispel some of the myths that surround this House in regard to the amount of money politicans receive and how little time they work. Like other Members, I was appalled at some of the recent reports in the printed media, in one paper in particular, about what we do not do, how much we are paid, etc. I do not believe it is a fair assessment of what goes on in this or the other House. It is outrageous that somebody who comes here very rarely, should write these scurrilous reports and then not be seen for weeks or months. There are many very good journalists who attend this House every day it sits, and who are also here on non-sitting days, and they give a much better and more balanced report on what happens.

There has been a long tradition of honourable service to this House and when debating this issue we should not forget that both past and present Members have served the political process very well and we should be very proud of them. The public should recognise that there has never been a major financial scandal involving a politician or a public servant, and there are very few countries with such a record. When considering this legislation the Minister should not forget that. It is important that we do not forget this country's long and proud tradition of politics.

Many proposed reforms with regard to committees, parliamentary questions and so on will go a long way towards more open politics and people will be able to examine proposed legislation in greater detail. In the past one of the complaints of backbench TDs was that they did not have the power to have an input into legislation. In future these Members will work much closer with Ministers and officials in the public service to make sure that legislation is examined in a more thorough fashion and is more relevant to the needs of the public.

Now that we have closer ties with Europe, I welcome many of the proposed changes. Europe will become more important in our lives and many of the proposed reforms will help to make this and the other House more relevant to the European Parliament and Commission. It is important that the Government is fully accountable to the Dáil. One of the complaints levelled in the last few years was in this area. The new committees will help bring about more accountability and Deputies will have greater influence over proposed legislation.

I welcome the Minister's clarification of some of the matters raised in a radio interview about which I was very concerned. I am glad that we will not be asked to state the number of shares we hold or the amount we have in bank accounts because personal and family privacy is very important. I have a joint account with my wife and I do not see why I should have to tell people how much is in it. There is enough encroachment on my personal time and that of my family without having to show how much money is in our bank account.

I welcome this measure in principle. Politicians have, and must be seen to have, very high standards. If the proposed legislation is to be effective we will have to find a balance between encroaching on Members' privacy and putting in place proper rules and regulations. That is going to be an extremely difficult task for the Minister and I wish her well.

I hope the Minister does not use a sledge-hammer to deal with this issue. There is a danger that we could overstate the problem and, I do not believe there is a huge problem. Some people like to think that there is something going on in this House when there is not. I ask the Minister to tread very carefully and ensure that she does not encroach upon Members' privacy.

As an earlier speaker said, we welcome into this House people who have a wide range of experience. Such people who have something to give in terms of legislation should be encouraged to come into this House. If these proposed reforms discourage people from doing this we will have done a very bad day's work. We should be encouraging people with a wide range of experience to get involved in politics and put themselves forward for election. We must bear this in mind when debating Dáil reform. As Deputy Gilmore rightly said, we must make sure that Members are not put at a disadvantage. That is a very important point which we should not forget.

We should not forget the record of this House, which is very good by any standards. There have been major scandals involving politicians in many democracies throughout the world. Thankfully, there have been no such scandals in this country and we all hope there will be none in the future. We must make sure that the public interest and Members' interests are looked after. It will be very difficult to strike the correct balance in this respect and the Minister should be careful how she acts.

Regardless of what we do, many people will continue to believe there is something wrong with politics, that politicians are overpaid and all kinds of shenanigans are going on; there is very little we can do to make them change their minds. We must make sure that things are done correctly and are seen to be done correctly. We must also encourage people to become involved in politics; we must not discourage them by adopting unacceptable rules and regulations or proposed legislation.

Mr. Dukes

Am I right in thinking, Sir, that there is a period for questions, a Committee-style debate, between 1.30 p.m. and 2 p.m?

An Ceann Comhairle

Between 2.30 p.m. and 3.20 p.m.

Mr. Dukes

The order states that a general Committee-style debate will take place between 1.30 p.m. and 2 p.m.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is referring to a question and answer session which will take place between 2 p.m. and 2.30.

Mr. Dukes

Was it changed?

Mr. Dempsey

It is due to be held between 2 p.m. and 2.30 p.m.

Mr. Dukes

I stand corrected.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I welcome this two-day debate on Oireachtas reform. I believe there is unanimous agreement that Dáil reform is not only overdue but that it is long overdue and vitally necessary. It is important in reforming the procedures of this House that we improve its effectiveness rather than disimproving it.

We experimented in the past with change, and some of those changes have become accepted procedure, for example, Priority Question time. I was a Member of this House before Priority Question time was introduced and I believe Priority Question time and the way in which Question time generally is now conducted has resulted in Ministers giving fewer answers to Deputies and has reduced the effectiveness of the House in holding the Executive to account. A Minister answers questions only once every four or five weeks. If he or she wants to evade answering a question, he or she can give very long replies which is especially the case in regard to Priority Questions. Very lengthy replies consume time — there is no time for supplementaries — and, therefore, the Minister can evade giving answers to the House. That might be regarded as a slick thing for the Minister to do on the day but it has the cumulative effect of letting the Government off the hook day in, day out. The primary role of Parliament is to keep the Government on its toes and hold it to account. Therefore, that change has had an adverse effect.

Under the old system Ministers answered questions in the House for several days and if they gave over-lenghty replies they only delayed themselves. Therefore, the onus was on Ministers to give short replies. That reform of Question Time reduced the effectiveness and impact of the House. We should remember that all reform is not necessarily better. Therefore we have to ensure, so far as possible, that reform brings about improvements and not the reverse.

The same point applies to the Register of Members' Interests. There is undoubtedly a need for such a register. It will be very difficult to exclude from such a register the interests of the spouses of Members and, maybe, their children. However, this clashes with the right to privacy. It has to be borne in mind that there may be marital disharmony, Members and their spouse may be separated or a Member may be in a common law relationship. I do not think the Minister of State who is promoting those proposals has given adequate consideration to the implications of what is being proposed.

We need to distinguish between the declaration of interests and the publication of interests. It would be wrong and a gross invasion of privacy if the details of a spouse's or Member's overdraft were to be bandied about by some cynical columnist in a daily or weekly newspaper or magazine. I do not think that is what is intended. The Minister should reflect on the proposals put forward by Fine Gael in the last Dáil in which we called for the appointment of a commissioner with whom interests could be registered and who would monitor issues in which Members or their close family members had a direct interest. This would properly allow for the declaration of those interests but not permit for the wrong and trivial publication of those interests to the embarrassment of people who are not in public life. The pressures on families of politicians are already immense.

The campaign conducted by The Star about the need for reform of this House is worthwhile. Even though the campaign has been exaggerated it has helped to engender interest within this House in bringing about some of the changes we all know have been overdue for a long time. While I commend The Star for that campaign, I am sure it will forgive me if I suggest that it has got some of the facts wrong and it should try to correct them. It has referred to the “fat cats” in Leinster House. Would The Star carry out a survey to ascertain those Members who would actually be better off if they were not Members and those Members whose families are making a financial sacrifice by virtue of the fact that a family member is a Member of the Dáil? They read in The Star and other newspapers that we have another month's holidays. The Star is deliberately confusing the recess with holidays. Members work 90 to 100 hour weeks even when the House is in recess because of the demands of constituency work, research, meeting deputations etc.

The Star campaign is a good one but there is a danger — and one thought of by the Evening Herald— that they are seeking to achieve reform but are in fact breeding cynicism. The same charge can be made against the proposals brought forward by the Government, which are ill-considered. There is a danger that the Minister, in not giving due consideration to the reforms needed, will give the whole question of reform a bad name. I sense a reaction against the Minister and her proposals because of the invasion of spouses' privacy implicit in these proposals.

The question of costs has not been adequately addressed. The impression could be given that there is a huge gravy train here and Members are making a fortune when I would hazard a guess that most Members lose money by being in politics.