Vol. 509 No. 2
6 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he intends to introduce any changes to the Cabinet Handbook to further alert each Minister to the dangers of accepting gifts or hospitality that might appear to place him or her under an obligation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17744/99]
7 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he has issued any instructions to Ministers regarding the circumstances in which they may accept gifts or hospitality from corporate interests who may be lobbying the Government for certain decisions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17745/99]
8 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has to introduce changes to the Cabinet Handbook covering the acceptance by Ministers of hospitality or gifts; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18774/99]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6, 7 and 8 together.
The Ethics in Public Office Act, 1995, deals comprehensively with the matter of gifts to office holders. Section 15 provides that gifts which exceed £500 in value and which are given to an office holder by virtue of office be deemed to be gifts to the State. In these circumstances the gift, or in certain circumstances its value, is transferred to State custody or the Exchequer. The Act expressly exempts gifts given by a friend or relation of the recipient for personal reasons only.
Government guidelines prepared in accordance with section 15(4) of the Act provide that all officeholders are expected to adhere to the fundamental principle that an offer of gifts, hospitality or services should not be accepted where it would, or might appear to, place him or her under an obligation. The guidelines go on to make specific provision for dealing with such matters. Again the guidelines provide that the supply of property or services below £500 in value or made for personal reasons by a friend or relative are exempt.
Under the Ethics in Public Office Act, 1995, each member of Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann must make an annual statement of interests to be registered. Interests to be registered exclude living accommodation, etc., supplied by a relation or friend of the person for personal reasons only, unless its acceptance might reasonably be seen to have been capable of influencing him or her in the performance of functions as a Member, officeholder, etc. The Cabinet Handbook refers to the statutory requirements and contains a copy of the guidelines to which I have already referred.
It is evident that the treatment of gifts is addressed comprehensively in the statutory framework and the steps to be taken in different circumstances are clearly specified. The Ethics in Public Office Act, 1995, was a long time in preparation and strikes a fine balance between the right of individuals to have personal lives and the need for accountability in the conduct of official business. I regard the balance struck as appropriate. I have no proposals by way of fresh legislation or addition to the Cabinet Handbook which would interfere with the balance so painstakingly evidenced and established in the Act.
Does the Taoiseach believe the Tánaiste and the Minister for Finance were in breach of the guidelines when they accepted free accommodation in the villa of a company that was making, had made or might have made representations with respect to some Government decisions or EU directives?
It is a matter for the Public Offices Commission to decide whether there was any infringement of the regulations. It is not a matter for the Taoiseach to decide in any case, whether there is an infringement of the rules.
A Cheann Comhairle, you seem remarkably well prepared to offer that opinion.
He is diligent.
I am quite astounded at the liquidity with which—
The question was only allowed on the basis that it asks the Taoiseach if he is changing regulations.
My reason for asking the question is that it is generally held by the media and columnists that a breach did occur—
We are not the body under the Act—
—and since the Taoiseach offered an opinion in the newspapers that the breach was trivial, I wonder if he has any plans to change the regulations. I am quite astounded by your intervention.
I have ruled it is not a matter for the Taoiseach or any other body to decide. The House has appointed the Public Offices Commission to decide these matters.
On a point of order, I submit that there is a distinction to be made in respect of the Public Offices Commission which has an obligation in regard to Deputies, whether or not they are Ministers. However, the head of the Government has a responsibility in regard to Cabinet procedures and whether they are being complied with. The issue of Cabinet standards is for the Taoiseach to deal with, not the Public Offices Commission. It is appropriate to ask questions about that matter vis-à-vis the Cabinet Handbook.
Questions were only allowed on the basis of what changes, if any, the Taoiseach might be proposing.
I accept that.
Matters which are the responsibility of the Public Offices Commission should be left to it and not decided in this House.
This matter concerns the Cabinet and the Government and 5(2) states that the Secretary General to the Government will in turn inform the Taoiseach if an inappropriate gift has been received and whether it should be refunded. A Cheann Comhairle, I know you are administering the rules as you understand them, but in this case I agree with the point of order made by Deputy Bruton. This matter concerns Cabinet guidelines and the responsibility for adhering to those guidelines rests in the first instance with the Secretary General to the Government who is obliged under the guidelines agreed in 1996 to inform the Taoiseach. In those circumstances and as the Taoiseach is on record as saying the breach was trivial, does he accept that is an accurate quotation – it must be as I think it was a live quote – and does he have any plans to change the guidelines? I would respectfully submit that I am in order.
Questions on changes in legislation are in order.
Since this matter concerns Cabinet guidelines the question is in order and it is in order for the Taoiseach to respond.
On a similar point of order, is it in order to ask about possible changes to the legislation?
Any question to the Taoiseach in relation to any changes he might have in mind are in order.
Can we get an answer to the first question?
As the Ethics in Public Office Act is monitored and regulated by the Public Offices Commission, it is not in order—
I am prepared to listen to the Taoiseach's answer to the first question and I will then ask mine, which I think is in order.
On the matter of what I did or did not say, I said Members of the Government are aware of their obligations under the Ethics in Public Office Act, 1995. I regularly bring those and the new Cabinet Handbook to the attention of my colleagues. They are aware of their responsibilities and obligations. Within the terms of the handbood and the terms of the Act, they must make a decision about what they deem to be their responsibilities and obligations. My duty as regards the Cabinet Handbook is to make people aware of those obligations and to ensure that they comply with them if they deem it necessary. Deputies will be aware that it falls on the individual Member to make that decision.
A Cheann Comhairle, arising from the Taoiseach's reply, which you have allowed, following the "trivial" breach of the guidelines – I am using his words – did he raise this matter with the two Ministers in question? Have they followed the guidelines to the effect that they will make a refund as set out in article 5(2) for the value of the free gift they obtained or will they take any other action in accordance with Cabinet guidelines? Has the Taoiseach discussed the matter with them?
Members must comply with the guidelines in the Cabinet Handbook and the Ethics in Public Office Act if they believe they must do so. The Deputy knows about the restrictions, obligations and the areas where the guidelines do not apply. One of the Members mentioned in this debate has already stated a position, the other person has not.
Did you discuss the matter with either of them?
This issue was raised in late August. Members are aware and have been made aware by me on a number of occasions of both the Ethics in Public Office Act and the Cabinet Handbook. However, they should be carefully interpreted. People have friends and family, a person can spend time with family and a family member could have as much influence on something one does as a friend—
This was a company villa.
—and they must decide whether that would influence their judgment.
Did the Taoiseach discuss the matter with them?
I call Deputy Bruton.
Will the Taoiseach outline his responsibilities as Taoiseach in regard to compliance by Ministers with the requirements of the Cabinet Handbook? Does he believe he has an obligation to satisfy himself about this or is it something he leaves to the Ministers concerned to make judgments about without any oversight by him?
My obligations include ensuring that Members are aware of the requirements. Last year the handbook was updated and I strongly advised people that they had to abide by it. Where there is doubt, the Secretary General of the Government arbitrates. Where an issue is brought to my attention and where I believe something should be complied with, I have an obligation to point that out.
Has the subject of Deputy Quinn's questions been brought to the Taoiseach's attention in a formal sense and has he adjudicated on the propriety of the acceptance of these gifts?
The Chair understands that a complaint has been lodged with the Public Offices Commission on this matter.
I know and I do not wish to go into that. As my point of order suggested, I am not getting into the area of the Public Offices Commission. My question related to the Taoiseach's last answer in which he stated that he had an obligation to ensure that Ministers are aware of what is in the handbook, that they will report cases of doubt to the Secretary General and that, in cases of further doubt, he may adjudicate. Was this particular acceptance of a gift reported to the Secretary General and did the Taoiseach adjudicate as to whether this was appropriate? If so, what was the adjudication?
The Chair must point out that the Cabinet guidelines have been incorporated into the Ethics in Public Office Act and these are monitored by the Public Offices Commission.
Will the Chair accept – I say this as somebody who has held the office of Taoiseach – that compliance with the provisions of the Cabinet Handbook, which is separate from—
This in incorporated into the—
No, the Cabinet Handbook instructions predate the ethics legislation. They are antecedent to it and they are policed by the Taoiseach of the day who makes the judgments. What judgment has the current Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, made about the propriety or otherwise of the acceptance of these gifts? Has he made any judgment and, if not, why?
The Deputy is correct. I have responsibilities as head of Government. I am satisfied that members of the Government appreciate the importance of complying with both the requirements of the Cabinet Handbook and the ethics legislation. With regard to the issues raised by Deputy Quinn, the acceptance of hospitality from a friend on a personal basis has been acknowledged. It fails to be provided for in the Act but it has to be dealt with under the Act. Members of the Government are aware of that and, in due course, they will act on it. They are also aware of their responsibilities under the Cabinet Handbook.
They know they have responsibilities but the Taoiseach does not enforce them. It is a free for all, take what you can.
The Taoiseach with recall that when the McEvaddy story broke, the Tánaiste was at pains to stress that Mr. McEvaddy—
That is a matter before the Public Offices Commission, I understand.
This is crucial to my question, the issue of exclusion.
Will the Deputy please ask his question?
The Taoiseach said that friends are excluded in this legislation. Does he agree that this is a serious loophole in that it is now possible for a Minister to claim that a mere acquaintance is a friend and therefore he or she can accept gifts from whomsoever—
The Deputy is again referring to the merits or demerits of a particular case.
I am asking a specific question about legislation. Does the Taoiseach believe this loophole must be addressed and what does he intend to do about it?
Nothing. I am not sure there is a requirement to do more on it. This was debated at length and if one were to change the legislation further or attempt to make it tighter, one could reach the point where any Member of the House who happened to have a long time friend or family member who was wealthier than the Member could not visit or involve themselves with that person. There are provisions in the legislation where if the Member believes that somebody, even a relative or a friend, might create a problem under the Second Schedule of the Act, the Member is given the choice of bringing that forward. That issue has been looked at and arbitrated on. It is dealt with in the Second Schedule of the Act and it is up to Members to act on that. However, it is not necessary to change the legislation and make it more difficult.
The time for Taoiseach's questions has elapsed but I will allow a final supplementary from Deputy Quinn and Deputy Bruton. The Deputies must be very brief.
Has the Taoiseach, having made himself aware of what took place and studied what happened, that is, that people took a holiday in a villa owned by a corporation—
We cannot discuss a specific case.
It arises from this, Sir. In light of what has happened and his knowledge, does the Taoiseach still hold the view that there was a trivial breach, to use his phrase, of the guidelines? If that is his view, has he brought it to the attention of—
The Chair understands that this matter is before the Public Offices Commission.
I must dispute this. We are talking about Cabinet guidelines—
—which are incorporated in the ethics Act.
It is the other way around.
However, the explicit policing of these guidelines is vested in the Secretary General to the Government who must report to the Taoiseach.
The Chair has ruled on this matter on a number of occasions.
I believe the ruling is wrong.
A final supplementary from Deputy Bruton.
In regard to the gifts referred to in Deputy Quinn's question, has the Secretary General received a report on the matter? Has the Taoiseach seen the report and has he adjudicated on it?
This matter comes under the ethics legislation and the commission will make a decision on it. What the Secretary General says to the Government is a matter for him and the Government and not for Question Time in the Dáil, as Deputy Bruton is aware. As it happens, this matter will be and must be dealt with under the Ethics in Public Office Act. That has been accepted.
The functions of the Taoiseach are not exercised by the ethics commission but by the Taoiseach.
That concludes Taoiseach's questions. We must proceed to questions nominated for priority to the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation.
