I remind the House we are discussing amendments Nos. 14 to 17, inclusive, 40 to 43, inclusive, and 54 together by agreement.
Ethics in Public Office Bill, 1994: Report Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 14:
In page 15, line 49, to delete "£1,000" and substitute "£1,500".
—(Minister of State at the Office of the Department of Enterprise and Employment.)
On the last occasion we dealt with this matter I referred to the Minister's proposal to increase the sum of £1,000 to £1,500. We proposed a substantial increase on that amount lest anybody makes a dubious claim against a Member of either House of the Oireachtas. In the event of a general election or local election — many Members are also a member of corporations or county councils — this measure could have far-reaching consequences — for example, where a person or a cartel wrongfully makes accusations against a Member of the House.
The perception today of Members is not as good as it was previously, and nobody will deny that. As a woman said to me many years ago, there is no smoke without fire. In a constituency where the percentage of the vote may be marginal this measure would have serious consequences for the person involved. If the person is defeated at an election the case against him falls.
I think the Minister stated on the last occasion — I am open to correction on this — that legal advice is that it would be unconstitutional to increase the sum to such an extent. In all my time in the House I have seen Attorneys General put different interpretations on issues, as we witnessed recently. Legal advice has been given in the past to the effect that part of a Bill could not be amended and at a later stage another Attorney General decided that it could. To be more precise, on the Road Traffic Bill we were told that the level of penalties to be introduced would be unconstitutional. That measure was amended by a subsequent short Bill which was passed in the House only a few weeks ago. It is very difficult to explain to the ordinary people that one Attorney General may say something is unconstitutional while another may take a different view.
I have received very eminent legal advice on this matter to the effect that the amendment in the name of Deputy McCreevy and myself is not unconstitutional. The only reason we have tabled amendment No. 15 is to prevent a person making a spurious claim against a Member of the House. Such a claim could possibly be made against the Minister of State or myself. The amendment seeks to protect Members of both Houses against such a claim.
Political charges have not only been made since the introduction of this Bill; they have always been made during elections and, as politicians, we are used to dealing with them. I have taken legal advice and am informed that the maximum amount of costs that can be charged against somebody who makes a frivolous or vexatious complaint without the matter being brought to court is £1,500. I included that figure in the amendment based on that advice.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 15 not moved.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 16, line 10, to delete "£1,000" and substitute "£1,500".
Is it in order if I make a brief point?
Strictly speaking, no. Amendment No. 16 was discussed with amendment No. 14 which has been put to the House.
May I make a brief point?
I hesitate to rule against the Deputy.
My reservations regarding amendment No. 14 apply to this amendment. My only motive in tabling amendment No. 15 related to these reservations.
Amendment No. 16 was discussed with amendment No. 14.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 17 not moved.
Amendment No. 18 is a drafting amendment in the name of the Tánaiste. I observe amendment No. 19 is cognate and I suggest amendments Nos. 18 and 19 be taken together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 16, line 11, to delete "the Committee" and substitute "a Committee".
The amendments involve the substitution of the word "a" for the word "the".
What does the Minister mean by the term "a Committee"? There are 18 committees of the House.
The amendments seeks to ensure that the section would cover the committee on Members' interests in this House and the committee on Members' interests in the Seanad. That is the reason for the substitution of the words "a committee". It is defined as the select committee on Members' interests.
I assume the term refers to the select committee on ethics in this House and a similar committee in the Seanad and matters will not be transferred to a committee without the approval of the Dáil.
Yes.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 16, line 13, to delete "the Committee" and substitute "a Committee".
Amendment agreed to.
We now come to amendment No. 20. Amendment No. 22 is consequential and I suggest we discuss amendments Nos. 20 and 22 together.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 16, to delete lines 27 to 33.
Amendments Nos. 20 and 22 are technical amendments. Subsection (2) is being deleted because, as indicated on Committee Stage, that provision has been inserted into section 27 (3). Amendment No. 22 proposes to delete the reference to that subsection in subsection (6).
What is the reason for that?
To tidy up the Bill. Provisions relating to guidelines and advice from committees and from the commission are grouped together under section 27. The provision is not required here as it is already contained in the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
We now come to amendment No. 21. Amendment No. 38 is related and I suggest we discuss amendments Nos. 21 and 38 together.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 16, to delete lines 44 to 48 and substitute the following: "(5) A person shall act in accordance with guidelines and advice published or given to the person under this section unless, by so doing, the act concerned would constitute a contravention of another provision of this Act.".
These two amendments relate to what would happen if somebody acted in accordance with guidelines issued either by a committee under section 21 or by the commission under section 38. On Committee Stage there was criticism of the manner in which the sections were originally drafted in that the language used was somewhat obscure. We have redrafted the sections to convey the same meaning but in simpler language.
Section 38 states that a person shall act in accordance with guidelines or advice published or given to the person under this section unless, by so doing, the act concerned would constitute a contravention of another provision of this Act. What does the Minister mean by the term "shall act in accordance with the guidelines?" Does she mean that a person will have complied with them by signing the statutory declaration?
The Bill provides that when filling out annual returns or making declarations people can seek guidance from the commission or committee who will draw up guidelines for the benefit of Members in general and in individual cases if necessary. The amendment states that people shall act in accordance with guidelines unless in an exceptional case when the guidelines are wrong and constitute a contravention of the Act.
While I want to be of the utmost assistance to the Deputies and the Minister of State, on Report Stage Members may speak only once, with the exception of the sponsor of an amendment, who in this case is the Minister of State. However, if the Deputy wishes to intervene by way of interjection I will allow him.
I thank the Chair for its guidance. Under section 21, in accordance with the guidelines persons must disclose all their interests. I note that the parties in Government, particularly Fine Gael, are greatly concerned about this matter. I recently read an article by the former Minister for the Marine, now Minister of State at the Department of Finance, who gave a detailed outline of his views on this matter. Deputy Barry also had a great deal to say on the matter. Have we gone too far? As, following the enactment of the Bill, people will have to give a full account of everything they own, will persons of good calibre stand in elections? I have no difficulty in that regard because I signed a declaration of interests each time I was elected to Offaly County Council and, if necessary amended it. I understand what the Minister means by a contravention of the provisions of the Bill, but it shall be referred only to the committee responsible to both Houses.
I granted the Deputy some licence but I did not contemplate it would result in further debate on the subject tantamount to a Committee Stage procedure. I am obliged to adhere to the procedure at this time and ask Deputies to have regard to that fact. If the Minister of State wishes to make a brief response I will allow it.
I appreciate that the Chair allowed me some injury time.
I hesitate to rule against the Deputy at any time.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 16, line 49, to delete "(other than subsection (2)".
Amendment agreed to.
As amendment No. 24 is consequential on amendment No. 23 I suggest we discuss both amendments together.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 17, to delete line 32.
This amendment relates to my earlier remarks. I do not have a difficulty with the inclusion of Members' spouses in the Bill, but their children should not be included. Children have minds of their own and their parents may oppose a transaction they are contemplating. If children of office holders believe their parents may object, they may not inform them of their intentions. The Bill states that this shall apply to an interest of which the office holder has actual knowledge, but I do not know how the public will react to that because of the way the media treat certain matters. For example, a son or daughter of a Member could purchase land which neither I nor the Member concerned would be aware of and some time later the land could be recommended for rezoning by the local authority. We are all aware of the controversy in recent years about the rezoning of land, particularly in County Dublin. This problem could arise whenever the Department of the Environment, with Government approval designates a site or sites, subsequent to which the son or daughter of a Minister or a member — whose parent could also be a county councillor in the relevant area — declares an interest in the relevant site or sites. In such circumstances what would be the public reaction? It would be to the effect that of course the Member knew, we are not fools. If it were one of my sons I know nothing would clear me. The public would not swallow my coming into the House, saying that to the best of my knowledge I was unaware of that interest. That is why this phrase is inappropriate, indeed it is unfair and wrong.
I read the other day that the company of the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Coveney, in which he has been a shareholder over many years, has been told by the Government it cannot tender for any work with the Office of Public Works. That is a disgrace, especially for its employees. I cannot understand why his company cannot tender for works, or at least be allowed do so with many others. I do not make that case solely with regard to that Minister of State but in the case of any Minister. It is totally unfair, wrong and, above all, unjust that its employees should be treated in that manner.
The implications for the child of any Member are far-reaching because nothing would clear such a Member or his or her spouse, they would be accused of knowing of such interest. That is why I advocate the deletion of the phrase "to the best of one's knowledge". What does "knowledge" mean? Do I have to say I knew nothing about it? That places Members in a very difficult position. The same problem would arise whenever rezoning of land takes place or is designated for a particular purpose under the provisions of the urban renewal scheme. In some cases, its value could appreciate ten fold so that land bought for, say, £100,000 would be worth £1 million overnight. Although a Member of the House can say that he or she was unaware of the son or daughter having been involved; nobody would believe it.
When this Bill was being debated by the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs there was a discussion on this issue over four hours when unanimous sentiments was expressed across the political divide. For example, when attending a local authority meeting at which a planning permission or application for rezoning is being considered a member with an interest there in whether assisting in the planning, acting as an estate agent, draughtsman or architect must leave that meeting having stated their interest or that of their spouse. However, this provision includes the interest of any child of a member. We must remember that any child over 18 years can decide his or her future, consult the various financial institutions and arrange requisite finance to engage in the type of business to which I have just referred.
I am extremely perturbed that the use of the phrase "to the best of one's knowledge" could be very damaging to a Member if the contingency to which I referred occurred, leading to the contention that the Member had full knowledge but was covering up. Therefore, I strongly oppose a child being included in this part of the Bill for the reasons I have spelled out.
The principle of this Bill is about maintaining the public duties and private business interests of Members and officeholders separately. The public has a right to expect there will be no inside track for the children of officeholders. The reason for the inclusion of these provisions is to establish a framework which will guarantee the separation of public and private interest, not only in the case of officeholders but of their close family members.
The provisions of this section apply to officeholders but not to Members. What are involved are confidential declarations in respect of those interests of a spouse or child of which the officeholders has "actual knowledge" which has been defined in amendment No. 1 already dealt with. It does not, therefore, cover all interests of children. For example, if a child has business interests in Australia, they would not be caught under this section. It is prudent for any office holder to be alert to any interests held by their spouse or child which could have a bearing on their brief. Officer holders should make those inquiries and register them on a confidential register. That will ensure what the public have a right to expect, namely, that the public duties of the office holder and the private business interests of themselves and their family will not intersect. That is the intention of this section and it is important that we retain these provisions as drafted.
I accept what the Minister has said but her interpretation of this amendment might result in Members of this House being reluctant to take posts in Government because of the position in which they would be placed. We are talking about a child who is over 18 years of age. He or she is not obliged to tell their father or mother what they have done or what they intend to do in the future, with respect to their business interests.
Young people are very articulate. They know what they want and where they are going. Many of them do not reveal to their parents the interests they might have in, say, property and they are not under any obligation to do so. A son or daughter of a Minister may tell him or her that their interests are none of their business. They might tell their parents not to ask any questions. It is a possibility.
Government Ministers may not be aware that their sons or daughters have purchased property because they might have strong objections in that regard. I hope I am proved wrong but I believe difficulties will arise in the future under this section. If such difficulties do arise, there may be a perception in the media that Government Ministers knew about their children's business interests and that they tried to cover them up. In such a case, will Ministers be in a position to clear themselves?
If a son told his father that he intended buying some land but did not tell his mother, a Government Minister, that might have far reaching consequences for her. I am not a betting man but if this section is enacted, major difficulties will arise in the future. Those could involve, for example, a son or daughter of a Minister buying land that was marked for rezoning. If that were to occur, how could an office holder, from whatever party, prove they had no knowledge of such a business interest? If such an interest was revealed, many questions would be put to that Minister in this House and an inquiry would be held into the matter. The office holder would be compromised and would have little option but to resign. His or her future political career would be very much in question.
The difficulties to which I have referred will almost certainly arise in the future. What will happen if it is discovered that the purchaser of land under the last urban renewal scheme in say, Dublin or Kildare is the son or daughter of the member of the Government who approved that scheme? A marathon debate would be held in this House to discuss such matter. The office holder's son or daughter's business dealings in this matter are exposed even though he may not have been the Minister who signed the designation order. The office holder is left with no option but to resign because the defence, "to the best of his knowledge" will not stand up. The same argument applies also to amendment No. 24.
I have had my day and I shall not be in Cabinet again. I am not working to a Government agenda and that is why I can put forward these amendments. My concern is for future Members and the position in which they will find themselves when they take office. I warn future office holders that they do not know what will happen to them should a conflict arise. Even in the event that the office holder concerned had nothing to do with designated areas for example, the perception will be that he knew and that will leave him with no option but to resign.
I understand the Minister is trying to cover all angles and my party has no problem with that. The committee may wish to call the son or daughter of an officer holder before it, but I have a legal opinion that is not constitutional and we cannot do it. I have spelled out clearly the reasons we are opposed to this. I have no objections to calling upon the officer holder and his or her spouse but I strongly oppose involving any child or children. When privileged information is bandied about in this House what was perhaps a good investment by a son or daughter is tarnished and becomes impossible to dispose of. This section has far reaching consequences and I wonder how it would stand up in court. Have previous Attorneys General advised on this? What is the present Attorney General's advice on it? It seems that Attorneys General differ.
This section has far reaching consequences for the children of office holders who would want to be very careful when buying property following the enactment of this Bill. Even when the son or daughter does not tell the office holder and his or her spouse about their business transactions, in case they are opposed to it, this is no excuse should the office holder be accused as people will not believe the office holder did not know. That is why I am asking for line 32 to be deleted.
Question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand" put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 17, line 36, to delete "or child".
Question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand" put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Acting Chairman
We now come to amendment No. 25 in the name of the Tánaiste. Amendment No. 26 is related. We will take amendments Nos. 25 and 26 together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 18, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:
"(3) Where the knowledge or belief of an office holder that—
(a) another office holder who is a member of the Government, or
(b) a person who in relation to that other officer is a connected person,
has a material interest in a matter to which a function of the Government relates derives solely from information in a statement made by that other office holder at or for the purposes of a meeting of the Government, subsection (1) shall not, as respects that interest, apply to the first-mentioned office holder, but the Taoiseach shall, before or as soon as may be after the performance of the function, cause a statement in writing in relation to that interest to be prepared and furnished to the Commission.".
Section 14 as it stands was added by way of Committee Stage amendment but it requires some fine-tuning. An unintended consequence of section 14 as currently drafted is that any Minister, irrespective of whether he or she has brought the matter at issue before Government, who learns at a Cabinet meeting that another Minister has a material interest must make a statement to the Taoiseach and the commission. Conceivably, there could be 15 Ministers around the Cabinet table making statements about the same matter. The amendments we are proposing involve the proposing Minister, any Minister with a material interest and the Taoiseach making a declaration on behalf of everybody else. This is to tidy up the procedure for making such declarations.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 18, to delete lines 20 to 25 and substitute the following:
"(3) References in this section to the performance of a function of the office of an office holder are references to the performance of the function by the office holder personally or by another person in pursuance of a direction given to the person, in relation to the particular matter concerned, by the office holder personally or a person acting on behalf of and with the personal knowledge of the office holder.".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 19, lines 5 and 6, to delete "(within the meaning of the Electoral Act, 1995)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 19, lines 39 and 40, to delete "(within the meaning of the Electoral Act, 1995)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 20, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:
"(7) In this section, `donation' means a contribution for political purposes.".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 19, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:
16.—(1) A person who holds or held the office of Attorney General—
(a) shall, subject to section 19 (3), in each year during any part of which he holds or held that office prepare and furnish to the Taoiseach and the Commission a statement in writing of—
(i) the interests of the person, and (ii) the interests of which he or she has actual knowledge of his or her spouse or a child of the person or of his or her spouse,
during the appropriate period specified in section 19 (1) which could materially influence the person in or in relation to the performance of the functions of that office by reason of the fact that such performance could so affect those interests as to confer on or withhold from the person or the spouse or child a substantial benefit, and
(b) in any case where such a function falls to be performed and he or she has actual knowledge that he or she or a connected person has a material interest in a matter to which the function relates shall, before or as soon as may be after such performance, prepare and furnish to the Taoiseach and the Commission a statement in writing of those facts and of the nature of the interest.
(2) (a) Section 19 shall apply to a statement under subsection (1) (a) as if the references in that section to sections 16 (1) (a), 17 (2) (a) and 18 (3) (a) (i) included references to subsection (1) (a) and with any other necessary adaptations.
(b) Subsection (2) of section 28 shall apply to the interests specified in subsection (1) (a) and to a person who holds the office of Attorney General as if the references in that subsection to sections 16 (1) (a), 17 (2) (a) and 18 (3) (a) (i) included references to subsection (1) (a) and with any other necessary adaptations.
(3) References in this section to the performance of a function of the office of Attorney General are references to the performance of the function by the holder of that office personally or by another person in pursuance of a direction given to the person, in relation to the particular matter concerned, by such holder personally or a person acting on behalf of and with the personal knowledge of such holder.
(4) Where a person who holds the office of Attorney General is a member—
(a) Paragraph (a) of subsection (1) shall not apply to the person as respects the interests, during the period of the person's membership, of the persons specified in that paragraph, and
(b) paragraph (b) of that subsection shall not apply to the person during the period of the person's membership.".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 22, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:
"(3) (a) A person who, during any period, holds or held or occupies or occupied an office or position specified in paragraph (b) shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be a person who, during that period, occupies or occupied a designated position in a public body.
(b) The offices and positions referred to in paragraph (a) are—
(i) the office of Comptroller and Auditor General,
(ii) the office of Ombudsman,
(iii) the office of Data Protection Commissioner,
(iv) the office of Director of Consumer Affairs, and
(v) such other (if any) offices or positions (other than the office of judge of any court) established by or under statute as may (if, but only if, the Minister considers it necessary in the public interest to do so) be prescribed.
(c) Subsection (4) shall not apply to a person who holds or held an office specified in subparagraphs (i) to (iv) of paragraph (b).".
Amendment agreed to.
Acting Chairman
We now come to amendment No. 32 in the name of the Tánaiste. Amendments Nos. 33, 34, 35 and 48 to 51, inclusive, are cognate. We will take amendments Nos. 32 to 35, inclusive, and 48 to 51, inclusive, together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 24, line 4, to delete "18 (3) (a)" and substitute "18 (3) (a) (i)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 24, line 22, to delete "18 (3) (a)" and substitute "18 (3) (a) (i)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 24, line 29, to delete "18 (3) (a)" and substitute "18 (3) (a) (i)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 24, line 41, to delete "18 (3) (a)" and substitute "18 (3) (a) (i)".
Amendment agreed to.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendment No. 36.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 27, between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following:
"(a) A person may have contravened Part IV.".
As the Bill stands an Oireachtas Member has no formal right to complain to the commission about a possible contravention of the Act by a director or public servant. In practice, however, it would be open to the Member to bring the matter to the attention of the commission which would then, on its own initiative, be able to commence the investigative process. Alternatively, the Member would be able to raise the matter with the Minister who could then ask the commission to investigate. On reflection, we have decided that Members should have a formal right to complain to the commission and this is what the amendment provides.
I welcome this amendment. It is only correct that a Member should have the right to complain to the commission. I agree with much of what my colleague, Deputy Connolly, said. We are treading on thin ice in regard to many aspects of this Bill. The rights of Members have been watered down so much in recent years, and they should have the right to deal formally with such matters.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment reported.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 31, to delete lines 21 and 22 and substitute "of the Government and the report includes determinations that there has been a contravention of Part IV and that the contravention was a serious matter, he or she shall cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House.".
As the Bill stands, a Minister receiving a report about an investigation into an alleged contravention of the Act by a director or public servant has discretion as to whether or not that report should be laid before the Houses. Clearly where the contravention was a minor or an inadvertent one, laying the matter before the Houses might not be appropriate. However, where the Commission has found a serious contravention, laying would be appropriate. Concerns were expressed on Committee Stage that a Minister could use his or her discretion to block the laying of such reports because of fear of potential political embarrassment. In response to those concerns, we are bringing forward this amendment which will make it obligatory to lay reports of serious contraventions before the Houses.
The problem here is that the definition of a serious contravention is purely subjective. What one Member regards as serious may not be so regarded by another. The definition could very well depend upon the circumstances, not least of which could be the political circumstances surrounding a particular action. Is there anywhere a precise definition of a serious contravention?
Under the terms of the Bill either a committee of the House which is investigating an allegation against a Member, or the commission investigating allegations against office holders, public servants, board members of State companies, etc., must make, as part of their findings, a finding as to whether any act or omission was serious or minor, whether it was deliberate or inadvertent. It is the judgment of the members of the committee in relation to Members which is not covered under this amendment, but I am clarifying it for the Deputy. The commission includes the Ceann Comhairle, the Clerks of both Houses, the Ombudsman and the Comptroller and Auditor General, and we can trust these very senior public servants to distinguish between serious and minor matters.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
We can trust the Commission, given its composition and the seriousness with which it will undertake the task, to distinguish between a major and minor matter.
Amendment agreed to.
I move No. 38:
In page 32, to delete lines 11 to 14 and substitute the following:
"(4) A person shall act in accordance with guidelines or advice published or given to the person under this section unless, by so doing, the act concerned would constitute a contravention of another provision of this Act.".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 39:
In page 32, line 18, to delete "made".
This is a drafting amendment. The word "made" is redundant and is being deleted.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 32, line 22, to delete "£1,000" and substitute "£1,500".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 41 not moved.
I move amendment No. 42:
In page 32, line 33, to delete "£1,000" and substitute "£1,500".
Amendment put and declared carried.
Amendment No. 43 not moved.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 44 is in the names of the Tánaiste and Deputies Connolly and McCreevy. Amendment No. 45 is related and both may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 44:
In page 33, to delete lines 37 to 43.
It is the view of the Attorney General that the original provision would have been unconstitutional. I do not share that view but it is the legal advice I have been given. Amendment No. 45 is a consequential amendment.
This matter was debated in the select committee. It was the view of all concerned in the committee that a Member's allowance or salary could not be withdrawn. I thought it was unfair to state that it could be withdrawn as the charges made against the Member would not have been proved. Am I correct in my interpretation? Some Members do not have income from other sources and are solely dependent on their salary as a Deputy. A dubious claim could be made against a Member. The Member could be brought before an inquiry and his or her salary and allowances withdrawn. It was stated that they could sign on at the local unemployment office. I am glad that our request was acceded to. The Attorney General is correct.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 45:
In page 34, to delete lines 4 to 11 and substitute the following:
"(4) The action referred to in subsection 2 (c) shall not affect either the amount of or the payment of any allowance or annual or other sum to which the office holder or other member concerned would, but for such action, be entitled under the Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) Act, 1938, Part III of the Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices Act, 1938, or section 3 of the Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) and Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices (Amendment) Act, 1992.".
Amendment agreed to.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 46. Amendment No. 47 is consequential and both may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 46:
In page 34, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:
"(d) Where a person becomes a member or an office holder after a registration date, he may, at any time before the next registration date, furnish to the Clerk, a statement in writing of his or her registrable interests and, (in the case of an office holder) his or her additional interests.".
As the Bill stands, a person who becomes a Member or office holder for the first time, for example, following a by-election or Cabinet reshuffle, does not make the required annual statement until the next annual registration date. The statements must be backdated to the date on which they took office. It was suggested that provision might be made to require newly elected Members or office holders to disclose their interests on appointment. I undertook to examine that and address it on Report Stage. As the first statements must cover all relevant interests held in the period since election or appointment to office there will not be any loss of disclosure. I am providing for the voluntary disclosure of interests by those newly elected or appointed and for the publication of same. This amendment will achieve that objective. If they make a voluntary declaration they will be in the same annual cycle as other Members and the same registration date will apply.
Will a Member who becomes an office holder be obliged to make two declarations during the calendar year? My interpretation is that Members will have to make annual returns and will be legally obliged to make another declaration if they become office holders. Will the obligation to make another declaration only apply if they acquire other interests since the first declaration? I would not like an office holder to be caught in this arena without knowing where he or she stands.
The Bill provides for a system of annual declarations. This amendment provides for a voluntary declaration where there is a change of status. We anticipate that the Taoiseach will seek a voluntary declaration from members on taking office but in any event a declaration of interest will be backdated to the annual date for all office holders. The Taoiseach sought a declaration similar to the declarations provided for in the Bill on appointing us to office and we envisage that this system will be continued. We are providing for a voluntary declaration and an annual declaration backdated to the date of appointment.
Acting Chairman
We are on Report Stage but I will allow Deputy Connolly a very brief intervention.
This is a very serious matter and I want to clarify some points. The Minister is saying that an office holder will not be legally obliged to make another declaration, that this will only be sought by the Taoiseach of the day and that it will only relate to the relevant calendar year.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 47:
In page 34, line 30, to delete "or (c)" and substitute ", (c) or (d)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 48:
In page 34, line 35, to delete "18 (3) (a)" and substitute "18 (3) (a) (i)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 49:
In page 34, line 42, to delete "18 (3) (a)" and substitute "18 (3) (a) (i)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 50:
In page 34, lines 46 and 47, to delete "18 (3) (a)" and substitute "18 (3) (a) (i)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 51:
In page 34, line 51, to delete "18 (3) (a)" and substitute "18 (3) (a) (i)".
Amendment agreed to.
Acting Chairman
Recommittal is necessary in respect of amendment No. 52. Amendments Nos. 52 and 67 form a composite proposal and it is proposed to take the two amendments together.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendment No. 52.
I move amendment No. 52:
In page 35, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:
"29.—Where a person to whom section 5, 13, 16*, 16, 17 or 18 applies has an interest that is not specified in the Second Schedule or a person to whom section 13, 16*, 16, 17 or 18 applies has actual knowledge that his or her spouse or a child of the person or of his or her spouse has such an interest, the person may at any time prepare a statement under that section of the interest and furnish it to the person or persons to whom such a statement is required by the section to be furnished and, where such a statement is so furnished, this Act shall apply and have effect as if the interest was an interest specified in that Schedule.".
The Attorney General has advised that paragraph 1 (9) of the Second Schedule which relates to the disclosure of other interests in annual statements is uncertain and, therefore, potentially unconstitutional. I propose to delete this provision under amendment No. 67. However, because the provision was partially designed as a protection for people making statements I am making provision in a new section for the voluntary disclosure of such other interests in the annual statement.
Is the Minister saying she is deleting lines 43-49 in page 45 because they are unconstitutional?
They are potentially unconstitutional.
When I was in office no Attorney General said a provision was potentially unconstitutional, it was either constitutional or unconstitutional. However, he might have said "to the best of my knowledge" or "as I see it". I presume this is the best legal opinion available to the Minister. I have spelled out in detail my concerns about the children of office holders and I will not repeat my arguments.
Amendment put and declared carried.
Amendment reported.
I move amendment No. 53:
In page 35, to delete lines 27 to 30 and substitute the following:
"(a) the person who made the complaint concerned, and
(b) the person to whom it related, a statement in writing of the reasons for its decision and, in the case of such a decision by a Committee, it shall, in addition, prepare and furnish such a statement to the Clerk.".
This is a technical drafting amendment which will ensure that the clerk does not receive submissions twice.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 54:
In page 35, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:
"(4) Section 11 shall apply with any necessary modifications in relation to a case where an investigation is discontinued under subsection (1) and section 25 shall apply with any necessary modifications in relation to a case where an investigation is discontinued under subsection (2).".
Will the Minister explain briefly what is meant by that amendment?
Acting Chairman
It will have to be very brief as we are on Report Stage.
You will agree we are making good progress.
Acting Chairman
If the Minister wants to make a brief response I will allow that.
I respect that but I would like a brief reply.
This amendment deals with the award of costs by a committee or commission where an investigation is discontinued on the grounds that the relevant complaint was frivolous or vexatious.
That comes back to my point.
Acting Chairman
Deputy Connolly is taking all kinds of liberties with the Chair and his generosity.
Amendment agreed to.
Acting Chairman
We come to amendment No. 55. Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 are related. It is proposed to take amendments Nos. 55, 56 and 57 together if that is agreed.
I move amendment No. 55:
In page 36, to delete lines 1 to 3 and substitute the following:
"(c) direct any person (other than a person referred to in paragraph (a)) in attendance before the Committee or the Commission, as the case may be, to produce to the Commission or the Committee, as the case may be, any document or thing in his or her possession or power specified in the direction,
(d) direct in writing any person (other than a person referred to in paragraph (a)) to send to the Committee or the Commission, as the case may be, any document or thing in his or her possession or power specified in the direction, and".
Section 30 deals with the powers of the committee and the commission. On legal advice we propose to further amend the section by rewording section 30 (2) (c) and adding a new provision, i.e. a new subsection (2) (d). The net result will be that in addition to compelling witnesses to attend and give evidence the committee or the commission will be able to compel a person not before the committee or the commission to send any document or thing in his or her possession to them. As regards the person who will be the subject of the investigation, compellability would not extend beyond a direction to attend before a committee or the commission, as the case may be. All witnesses would enjoy the same privilege and immunities as a witness in court. Because of the amendment to subsection (2), amendment Nos. 56 and 57 require consequential amendments to be made to subsection (4).
Who can be called before the committee or the commission? A Member of the House or a person outside?
They would be witnesses.
Can they be legally called before a committee?
Yes.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 56:
In page 36, line 26, after "answer" to insert "or to produce any document or thing in his or her possession or power legally required by the Committee or the Commission, as the case may be, to be produced by the person".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 57:
In page 36, to delete lines 27 to 30 and substitute the following:
"(c) fails or refuses to send to the Committee or the Commission, as the case may be, any document or thing legally required by the Committee or the Commission, as the case may be, under paragraph (d) of subsection (2) to be sent to it by the person or without just cause or excuse disobeys a direction under paragraph (d) of subsection (2), or".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 58:
In page 38, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:
"(11) The following shall be absolutely privileged:
(a) documents of the Commission, and documents of its members connected with the Commission or its functions, wherever published,
(b) reports of the Commission, wherever published,
(c) statements made in any form at meetings or sittings of the Com-mission by its members or officials and such statements wherever published subsequently.".
Given that the commission will have essentially the same purpose as the proposed select committees on Members' interests, to be established under the Bill, this provision is designed to extend to the commission the relevant privilege already enjoyed by Oireachtas committees in relation to documents, reports and statements.
Can these documents be published without the consent of the House? Will they get into the public domain without being authorised by the Oireachtas?
This amendment deals with the commission; it does not deal with the committee on Members' interests. The commission procedures are provided for in the section. The amendment relates to the privilege extended to documents and reports of the commission, wherever published, and statements made at meetings.
Are these documents sent to the commission?
Acting Chairman
Sorry Deputy, I have to deal with the amendment.
Paragraph (a) of the amendment states:
documents of the Commission, and documents of its members connected with the Commission or its functions, wherever published.
Acting Chairman
I will allow a very brief question even though we are on Report Stage. Unfortunately there are certain constraints on the Chair at Report Stage. There would have been an opportunity to tease out many of these points on Committee Stage. I am obliged to uphold the norms.
Following the Committee Stage debate this is an amendment put down by the Tánaiste and I am merely seeking clarification. Will the documentation get into the public domain without the consent of the committee involved or the Oireachtas? It could have a very damaging effect on a Member.
The amendment has nothing to do with Members.
It is relevant to related documents.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 59:
In page 38, line 15, after "14" to insert ", 16".
Amendment agreed to.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendment No. 60.
I move amendmnt No. 60:
In page 38, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:
"(2) Notwithstanding anything in this Act a statement prepared and furnished by a person pursuant to section 5, 13, 16*, 16, 17, 18 or 28 of an interest specified in paragraph 1 (5) (b) of the Second Schedule and relating to legal services or medical services (including psychiatric or psychological services) shall specify only that legal services or medical services, as the case may be, were supplied to the person or to another person (who shall not be identified in the statement) as respects whom the first-mentioned person is required by the section to furnish a statement; and the form of the statement determined under this Act shall be such as to facilitate compliance with the foregoing provision.".
On the advice of the Attorney General and in the interests of protecting the privacy of people in respect of free or discounted legal or medical services provided to them I am amending the Bill here. The result would be that while disclosure would be required that such services have been received, the person providing the services will not be named, nor will the person receiving the services unless he or she happens to be the person making the statement. This is to protect the privacy of a person who may get free medical services, that the practitioner offering the services is not named in a way that would label the speciality being sought.
Since we are in Committee is it to be the case that if a person has been administered free medical service they must reveal that fact but not the identity of the person providing the service? Is it thought that anybody in this House would act corruptly? Has the public a right to know that somebody received medical services during any year? What are we trying to achieve here? If I received as a gift some major corrective surgery what possible interest is there on the part of the public in knowing I had received it? I am deeply dubious about going that far. It is not as if people take medical services on a discretionary basis.
I do not think we ever get anything for nothing.
We are not talking about face lifts or other such things.
Some of us might benefit from it.
If we wanted to get rid of double chins, etc. Is it to be the case that Members are forcing themselves to reveal in public that they have received free medical services? What is the point? What possible public benefit can be served by such particularity?
The amendment also refers to legal services, that would include Deputy McDowell. What has it to do with a legal service? I do not know why that should be included.
If a barrister or a solicitor gave Deputy Connolly or the Minister services for nothing how could that possibly be of relevance to the public? I cannot see what purpose would be served by this particularity. I cannot imagine anyone providing legal or medical services to someone else with a view to gaining an improper advantage. If someone is forced into saying "last year I received medical services to the value of £30,000 from an unnamed person", what interest is it to the public that they did not pay for them?
Will reference have to be made in the medical report to the attention received? Can this information be requested? The word "psychiatric" is used in the Bill. Although some people outside the House may think at times that we are off balance, in general we are right in the head.
Acting Chairman
I ask the Deputy not to refer to people outside the House.
I do not understand the reasoning behind this provision; it is irrelevant. It is not right that any Member should have to provide such information.
The Second Schedule provides that gifts, in cash or in kind, worth over £500 should be disclosed. It would be imprudent, for example, for people in public life to accept gifts which might place them in a compromising position. In these amendments we are proposing to relax the provisions in respect of gifts of free or subsidised medical, psychiatric, psychological or legal services so that, for example, I would not have to release whether I am undergoing facial reconstruction which some people feel I might need or receiving gynaecological services free of charge from a friend. It is a relaxation of the general rule but as a general principle people in public life should be careful in accepting significant gifts. The acceptance of them could be misconstrued.
I genuinely believe that this represents excessive particularity. Whereas I agree that one should not be obliged to say whether medical services were psychiatric, gynaecological or plastic surgery, I fail to see why the public would want to know whether any Deputy, Minister or officeholder received free medical or legal services. Apart from Hollywood film stars, no one receives unnecessary medical services. If, for instance, a Minister has to undergo extensive medical treatment or dentistry it would be an outrage if they had to reveal this fact to the public. I do not believe that doctors or lawyers have ever provided services free to a Minister or Member of this House with a view to gaining any advantage. In fairness, there has never been a suggestion that a lawyer or doctor got a job or gained an advantage by virtue of providing free services to a Member of the Houses of the Oireachtas.
Instead of producing an amendment such as this which is unduly particular and invasive of the privacy of Deputies and officeholders the Minister of State should table an amendment in the Seanad to exclude this entire area from public gaze. While there is no potential for corruption there is obvious potential for invasion of privacy. If over the past year services were rendered to me as a favour by a doctor or psychiatrist, I should not have to reveal this in public. It would be offensive to politicians and to public officeholders if they were required to reveal such information in public as it would achieve nothing. I would much prefer the Minister of State to indicate that she will consider in the Seanad the possibility of exempting this area from public gaze as no one else in this country has to reveal, as a condition, whether they received medical services.
Let us suppose that a Member of this House has a psychiatric breakdown, that a psychiatrist renders them a service over a full year during which time they are in and out of institutions and that the personnel who treat them feel they do not want to make a charge. It would be outrageous if the Member concerned had to reveal this in public. While I accept they would not have to reveal that they received psychiatric treatment, newspapers would wonder what was done for Deputy Connolly or Deputy McDowell which was worth £10,000.
It is almost impossible to evaluate a medical service. If a psychiatrist provides counselling sessions over a six-month period, this could be worth virtually anything or nothing depending on the view taken. The Government is going too far down the purist road in saying that the public in any circumstances has an interest in whether a Member of this House receives free legal or medical advice or services. It would be far better to exclude this area from public gaze. Instead of particularising it and trying to reduce its more offensive aspects I would be much more impressed if the Minister of State indicated that she would be amenable to accepting an amendment in the Seanad to exclude this area from public gaze. I cannot imagine any circumstances where the fact that someone has received psychiatric services would be of legitimate public interest or could seriously affect that person's capacity to discharge their functions. Unless there is a clear case for intrusion on the privacy of officeholders and Oireachtas Members I suggest that the Minister of State should exclude it completely.
Were it not for this amendment it would never have occurred to me that the commission or anyone else might require me to say if a psychiatrist waived his fees in respect of psychiatric treatment. While I see the logical behind it, what worries me is that the exemption is so particular that it tends to drag in inferences as to the degree of privacy one has to rip apart in order to comply with the provisions of the Bill. If we were to ask every Member of the House whether they want the fact that they have received psychiatric counselling over a period of a year to be disclosed they would all say: "Take this out. For Heaven's sake, let us be sensible about this, nobody wants to know whether politicians or office holders received free medical or legal services." It is not even a possible means of corruption. We do not live in an Imelda Marcus world where face-lifts are provided free to Ministers——
Or they receive a present of 400 pairs of shoes.
——or elective surgery is carried out as a means of inducing people to make decisions. Perhaps I am being sexist; I will have to think of a male equivalent.
Hair transplants.
I ask the Minister to consider whether this measure is appropriate and whether this House should acknowledge that all psychiatric and medical services provided free, on a subsidised basis or whatever to Members of the House should be the subject of any revelation however vague. I see no possible advantage in that.
Lest a message go out that Members of the Oireachtas receive special treatment or free services, I know of no such case.
If they did, they would not mention it.
It was never mentioned and would not be mentioned. Members who receive hospital treatment pay for the service in the same way as everyone else. Most of us are in the VHI and our health insurance is deducted from our salaries as is the case in many companies. To state whether we receive psychiatric treatment or other related services is going very far and involves the private affairs of Members. In legal cases the standard charge laid down by the Incorporated Law Society applies to Members and the same is the case with medical services. I know of no Member who received free hospital treatment. During my time in this House nobody has ever asked for free treatment and I could not see it happening. This measure should be considered with a view to its deletion.
On many occasions lawyers act on a no foal, no fee basis. For instance, in tribunals law-years have acted for Members of this House on the basis that costs may or may not be awarded at a later stage. Is a Member of the House obliged to record that fact at the end of the year and say he is indebted to his lawyers for a national sum of money? That would be unacceptable. I do not see what positive purpose it could achieve. I still have not heard an explanation from the Minister on how and in what circumstances a person's medical treatment which is rendered free or at a reduced rate could influence them in the way they behave in public office or as a Member of the House.
Doctors may attend members of the public free of charge depending on the circumstances of the case — for example, where they are in need or in financial difficulties. The medical profession performs its duties excellently and the same applies to the legal profession. Where a person on the dole is involved in a court action the legal company involved may be contacted to seek an adjournment of the case so that one can find out whether the person can get free legal aid, but that does not apply to Members of the House. Members who take a court action or against whom action is taken pay their legal fees and in some cases they have to request their families to help them. If Members go to hospital for an operation for appendicitis, hernia or whatever, the public does not want to know about that; it is irrelevant.
It is out of concern for the kind of issues raised by Deputies that this extra provision, which relates to protecting individuals privacy is proposed. A prudent Member or officeholder should not accept gifts in cash or kind on a scale that would put them under a compliment to anybody.
I have been a Member of this House for a long time and I have never been under a compliment to anyone. I never sought any service free gratis and would not accept it. The Minister referred to gifts worth £500. When I was in Government I never received gifts to that value — I may have received a token worth perhaps £80 — and I am sure the position has not changed since. Lest the message go out that politicians receive free medical services or that we make arrangements, for example, to send other people to the doctor in return for a free service, that is not the case.
The medical and legal professions carry out their duties exceptionally well and the perception should not be created that they provide a service to politicians free of charge. That has never happened during my career and it is not part of my brief.
I do not wish to prolong the debate unnecessarily on this amendment. Having regard to what Deputy Connolly said, a Member of the House, who is not in my party, received extensive surgery during my time there. I understand that Members' friends, doctors and others paid the cost of his expensive surgery performed outside the country. That Member's surgery bill probably amounted to £250,000 or £500,000. Why should that Member have to reveal publicly the cost of such surgery and whether he paid for it? We all know the Member to whom I refer. Why should his medical affairs be publicly revealed and he be asked to state if he paid part of his surgery bill or if the value of the services rendered to him amounted to £500,000 or $500,000? It is wholly wrong that he should be asked to reveal such information.
When this Bill is enacted, if that Member is required to undergo further treatment will he be required to fill out a form and make a declaration that during the past year he underwent massive surgery and could only afford to pay a small amount towards its cost and that his friends, supporters, colleagues in the House and others raised a good deal of money to cover its cost? Why should that be a matter of public interest? Why should that person be dragged through the indignity of stating the value of the services rendered if such circumstances were repeated following the passage of the Bill? The Minister of State and Deputy Connolly are aware of the person to whom I refer. It is wrong that such a Member should have to complete a return stating the value of the money collected on his or her behalf towards the cost of major surgery. Such a request is offensive to privacy and to reason.
I would much prefer to hear the Minister say that when the Bill goes to the Seanad she will exclude medical and legal advice of this type. If such circumstances were repeated next year when this Bill is enacted, it is offensive that a Member would be forced to complete a form stating the value of the service he received.
The value of a service will not be required.
A Member should not be required to state that he or she received a major gift and it was over a certain limit. Why should Members be forced to make such statements? Is it seriously thought that in such circumstances people would contribute for the purpose of influencing a Minister or a Member? I am astonished that the Minister of State considers she can make law to cover such circumstances.
The more the matter is elucidated, the more I consider the amendment has far-reaching consequences. During the years Members have assisted a colleague, sometimes from across the political divide, in a private matter and that is only to be expected. Will it is be necessary to disclose details of such assistance when the Bill is enacted? Deputy McDowell raised an important point that when the Bill is enacted Members may be reluctant to assist another Member because of fear is being dragged into the public arena. It is petty to request a Member to divulge the financial assistance received towards the cost of his or her medical expenses. It is regrettable that mortality figures reveal that political life is high risk and that has been proven over the years. The information requested in this amendment is a new departure. I have never been asked to reveal information on medical or legal services. I do not understand the necessity for the inclusion of this amendment.
On Committee Stage I raised whether professionals or those in reasonably well paid employment will be willing to stand for election to either House when this Bill is enacted. If Members are requested to reveal such information, potential candidates will note that, if elected, they will be required to supply medical reports. Many companies require a person, when selected for appointment, to undergo a medical examination but I am not aware of any company that requires established members of staff to supply a medical report. Job applicants are not asked details of their legal advisers. Such information will only be requested if a claim for compensation is made and that is standard practice. Will the message go from this debate that newly elected members of the House be required to disclose details of their medical records in a case where they are in receipt of free medical treatment?
As Deputy McDowell and I said, we are not aware of any Member availing or having availed of free medical treatment. A party colleague may assist another who may be suffering from a minor ailment such as flu, but in medical matters involving general practitioners and hospital care I want the message to go from here that Members pay their way for such treatment. Why is the disclosure of such information relevant? Are the media going to report that in future newly elected Members will be required to submit a medical report, a psychiatric report and details of legal cases and legal representation? I do not consider it necessary or understand why Deputies should have to supply such information.
If I were unfortunate enough to require a liver transplant and had to travel abroad for the operation and various people clubbed together to pay the cost, I would object, in principle, to being requested to register that gift of necessary treatment on a register of interests in the House. This is not a fanciful objection on my part, we know of circumstances in which this might have happened. I object in principle to the idea that a person who receives a life saving gift should be required to declare it, however vague the amendment requires the declaration to be. This is unacceptable as members of the public would not be interested in who paid for such operation or in whether Members were likely to be influenced by the fact that a person gave them a gift to help defray the cost of saving their lives. The Bill is going much too far and we, as legislators, would be much better served by a Government that stated it is a Member's business if he or she receives free legal or medical advice or services. The public do not have a legitimate interest in such matters. I do not accept the proposition enunciated by the Minister of State that people should be cautious before accepting anything of substantial value. If, say, I had to have a liver transplant in America I should not have to be cautious about from whom I accept money to help to pay the cost. That is rubbish.
If the Deputy did not have the transplant he would end up in the graveyard.
It is offensive to our privacy to be told that something as intimate as a life saving operation paid for by colleagues or friends should be the subject of a return in public. The same applies to psychiatric services. I cannot imagine a psychiatrist or a psychiatric hospital not charging a Member of the Oireachtas a large fee for their services. However, if that happens it should not be of concern to anyone else. I plead with the Minister to consider this an unwarranted intrusion into the privacy of ordinary people and that has nothing to do with corruption. If the Minister of State can instance a case in Western democracies where a politician received free medical services and was influenced as a result, I would agree with her but, if not, she should withdraw this proposal and allow us some shred of privacy and dignity under the Bill.
This amendment was tabled by the Tánaiste, but I do not understand the Labour Party's thinking behind it. I cannot imagine Members of the Fine Gael Party agreeing to this nonsensical proposal. Members of the public are not interested in such information. On 15 June I will have been a Member of this House for 26 years during which time no member of the public has asked me for such information. If a Member has a serious operation and receives financial assistance towards the cost, under a previous amendment he or she must disclose that information within the calendar month, even though the assistance may have been provided by a family member. I do not know of any other employment in which such information is requested from employees. Before long it will be perceived necessary for newly elected Members to present a medical certificate as well as a legal report stating whether they were assisted in paying for their defence or defended free of charge in legal cases. The legal people who operate on a "no foal no fee basis", to which Deputy McDowell referred, are very scarce in the midlands. I accept that some legal people operate on such a basis in District Court cases dealing with, say, an unemployed person or other hardship case for which a nominal fee would apply. However, I do not know of any politician who received free legal aid.
Why should it matter to anybody, if, say, my relatives assist me in paying £12,000 for a hip operation? If a Member takes out an overdraft or a long term loan to cover medical costs, will he or she have to declare it? I hope not.
This proposal has gone too far and is unacceptable.
Amendment put and declared carried.
Amendment reported.
Carlow-Kilkenny): Amendment No. 62 is consequential on No. 61. Therefore, the two can be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 61:
In page 41, line 4, after "includes" to insert "an office holder or",
This is a technical amendment. In drafting the section the word "officer holder" was omitted and is now being inserted by this amendment. Amendment No. 62 is consequential.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 62:
In page 41, line 5, after "meaning" to insert", in each case,".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 63:
In page 44, line 9, after "office holder," to insert "Attorney General,",
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 64:
In page 44, line 34, after "officer holder," to insert "Attorney General,",
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 65:
In page 44, line 39, before "commercial," to insert "the".
This is a drafting amendment, the word "the" having been omitted in error.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 66:
In page 45, line 18, after "office holder," to insert "Attorney General,",
Amendment agreed to.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 67 was discussed with No. 52.
I move amendment No. 67:
In page 45, to delete lines 43 to 49.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill, as amended, do now pass."
Would the Minister please inquire of her party members, and of the members of the other parties in Coalition, whether they believe that free or discounted medical or legal services to Members of this House should be the subject of a declaration? If she conducts soundings within her party — forgetting about the Opposition parties for the moment — I think she will be satisfied that the vast majority of Members would agree that circumstances, such as a Member of this House needing a liver transplant, receiving significant gifts within that context to enable him or her save his or her life, should not be a provision of the Bill. I appeal to the Minister of State to accept such amendments tabled in the Seanad. Indeed, it would be my hope that Senators will move such amendments to preserve some shred of our dignity, some respect for our privacy, in all of these matters, leaving out of the public domain matters for which there is absolutely no public appetite for bringing them into the public domain.
This Bill was the subject of detailed consideration both in the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs and in the House. I hope the concerns of all Members will be considered and dealt with. Over the years Members across the political divide carried out their public duties without fear or favour.
I thank my colleagues for their constructive debate on this Bill over the past 18 months. When enacted it would be my hope that its provisions will not lead to any controversy in the case of office holders or Members, since the standard of membership has been excellent. We can hold our heads high, particularly when one looks at other parliaments in Europe. I also thank the Minister of State, and her officials, for the courtesy throughout the long debate, engaged in without rancour but honestly and fairly. We highlighted the strongly held views on this issue, voiced in the interest of Members and future Members of both Houses in addition to future office holders.
General elections held since 1973 have led to successive changes of Government. I hope I have helped to allay the fears of members of this and future Governments so that those elected to such high office will not have to travel a difficult path causing them or their immediate families concern. Nothing affects the members of a family as much as the traumatic events that occur here. The stresses and strains involved are widely appreciated.
I hope this Bill will operate fairly in the interests of all Members.
I thank all Members who have contributed to this debate. Rarely has any Bill been the subject of such lengthy teasing out on Committee and Report Stages. When I introduced it this time last year little did I think it would take so long to reach this Stage, or that the political complexion of the House would have changed in the way it has. Some Members have had the pleasure of speaking for and against the Bill at different stages as the political colour of the House changed.
Deputy Connolly was always consistent.
I thank Deputy Connolly in particular for his extensive contributions; I know his views are sincerely held and I respect them. I wish him the very best of health so that any health provisions of the Bill will not have to be invoked by him. I thank him for his gracious remarks.
I also thank the other Members who contributed extensively on Committee Stage, Deputy Cullen and Deputy Michael McDowell who brought his undoubted legal expertise to bear, uncovering a technical lacuna or two. He was extremely helpful in refining the Bill.
I hope the passage of the Bill through the Seanad will be smooth and that, when enacted, all of us will see public confidence in politics restored and enhanced. The purpose of the Bill is to copper-fasten the high standards that have obtained in public life here, thus guaranteeing the public that, when we are about its business, we are not about our own private business. If we achieve that objective through this Bill, we will have done a good day's work.
Question put and agreed to.