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.