Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 25 Jun 2003

Vol. 569 No. 4

Ceisteanna – Questions. - Standards in Public Office.

Joan Burton

Ceist:

1 Ms Burton asked the Taoiseach when it is intended that the new code of conduct for office holders, being prepared under the Standards in Public Office Act 2001, will be introduced; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14643/03]

Enda Kenny

Ceist:

2 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach when the new code of conduct for office holders, under the provisions of the Standards in Public Office Act 2001 will be completed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15225/03]

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Ceist:

3 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if the new code of conduct for office holders, under the Standards in Public Office Act 2001, will be completed in 2003. [16614/03]

Trevor Sargent

Ceist:

4 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach when the new code of conduct for office holders, under the Standards in Public Office Act 2001, will be introduced; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16663/03]

Joe Higgins

Ceist:

5 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach when the new code of conduct for public office holders will be published. [16761/03]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, together.

The Standards in Public Office Act 2001 required the drawing up by the Government of a code of conduct for office holders in the performance of their functions. Under the Act, it is the responsibility of the Standards in Public Office Commission to publish the code.

The draft code of conduct was agreed by the Government at the end of last year and was forwarded to the Standards in Public Office Commission for its observations at that time. The code has now been finalised and will be published by the Standards in Public Office Commission on Thursday, 3 July 2003.

I call on Deputy Kenny.

Last year in advance of the general election, expensive advertising was conducted by a range of Departments involving personal appearances by the Ministers in those Departments. Would the Taoiseach agree that this type of advertising should not be paid for by the taxpayer and that Ministers, in future, should not involve themselves in that kind of advertising?

This question is not directly related to the five questions submitted.

Is it not?

I am afraid not.

When we see the national newspapers and Ministers in various poses, looking out so diligently at their constituents being paid for at public expense—

Deputy Kenny—

—is it not part of the code of conduct for office holders that the Department should feel free to advertise but it should not become a personal promotion of individual Ministers in the run up to a general election?

The Deputy has made his point.

We used to be able to ask parliamentary questions like that in the old days.

Sean Doherty set the example of advertising.

In view of last year's court ruling, will the new code of conduct require Ministers to include the value of their departmental facilities in making declarations on election expenditure? I understand that one unsuccessful candidate is to take a court action because of the assessment that a particular Minister did not include full departmental facilities as part of his election expenses. Will that become the norm now?

The standards to be followed have already been set out. The Standards in Public Office Commission has already given advice on what must be done in future for all candidates in subsequent elections. The framework being set out in the code is really taken from the legislation already there. This includes the Ethics in Public Office Act, the Standards in Public Office Act, the Prevention of Corruption Act. as well as the other directives that the commission has issued in recent years. The code will cover the positions of the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, Ministers, Ministers of State, the Attorney General – if he is a Member of the Oireachtas – the chairmen and deputy chairmen of the Dáil committees, Seanad Éireann, the chairmen of joint committees of both Houses of the Oireachtas. It will set out the commission's views under headings as to the codes that should be followed.

The important thing is that the code will be admissible in any proceedings before a court, tribunal or committee of this House or the Standards in Public Office Commission. It will have the force of law and people will have to follow it, otherwise it will be used in evidence against them. I saw the earlier draft, but I hope this new draft will be one that people can follow easily and understand. It is important that people do so, as it will become the document against which people will be checked.

Does the Taoiseach agree this code of conduct is now more necessary than ever before? Is the Taoiseach aware that the Committee on Finance and the Public Service is currently discussing the draft code of conduct for civil servants and that it would be appropriate that the code of conduct for office holders should at the very least follow soon after the conclusions on the code of conduct for civil servants? If not, then the two should be introduced simultaneously.

Will the code of conduct come before the Houses of the Oireachtas for consideration? Will it be discussed in this House? How soon does the Taoiseach expect that we will address the detail contained therein?

Given the significant downturn in public confidence in representative office in this land, does the Taoiseach not recognise that it is incumbent on such a draft code to ensure that we do not see a situation allowed whereby, following the exorbitant over expenditure by candidates in the last general election, it is proposed or is likely to be proposed that there will be significant increases in the level of spending permitted in pre-general election electoral endeavours in the future?

The Deputy has gone well outside the five questions submitted to the Taoiseach.

The code of conduct is all about this. It is about a code of conduct that stands up and is not just aspirational but has some meaning. It is imperative that—

The Deputy's question is when the code of conduct will be completed.

—people should be held to account for that rather than a proposition being introduced to allow for increased spending in order to accommodate their abuses.

The Deputy has made his point. The Taoiseach to reply.

In the first case, the Standards in Public Office Act is already there. That legislation has been there for two years and people are governed by that. Since 1995 we have had ethics legislation, so all the standards and rules are already in place. However, under the Act it is the responsibility of the Standards in Public Office Commission to publish the code. These discussions have gone on before several Oireachtas committees in recent years. Members have given their views on the issue. The code will be published next week and will be there for everyone to follow. Whatever about the past, politicians are now a well-regulated group of people. There is a rule for almost everything. We all have to go through our form filling exercise. The code sets that out and this is the way politicians will have to conduct their business from now on.

I wish to ask a supplementary question.

I am only calling Deputies who submitted questions. I now call on Deputy Sargent.

No doubt, politicians have to fill in their forms and ensure they are correct and above board. However, can the Taoiseach inform the House, following the Kelly case, as to what changes he now sees being needed in the Standards in Public Office Commission to respond to the constitutional issues raised by that case? Perhaps the Taoiseach will look again at the last Government of which he was Taoiseach which set its face against the Standards in Public Office Commission trying to include all pre-election material.

We are dealing with a new code of conduct for office holders in these five questions.

It is in relation to office holders that the Kelly case adjudicated, a Cheann Comhairle, and it is relevant in that regard. Will the Taoiseach look again at the recommendations from the commission that there should be a much longer lead in period to any election in terms of evaluating spending? For example, the cost of running ministerial cars, which was not taken into account by the Standards in Public Office Commission, should be included in evaluations to make the playing pitch level.

I will not, as I do not believe many of the facilities at one's disposal as a Minister have anything to do with being elected. If we are to go into that area, we would have to look at what organisations receive State money that are politically motivated and consider whether that should be taken into account with regard to the candidates to which they align themselves. There are plenty of them around the country—

The commission did not recommend that.

Well no, but maybe it should have.

Does the Taoiseach want it to do that?

Maybe it should be included if the Deputy wants to include some of his suggestions.

What about the commission?

Legislation has been enacted for a number of years and now we have a code of practice to follow.

Deputy Sargent is incorrect in his final point. The Ethics in Public Office Act and similar legislation were strictly followed by the previous Government. The courts, as they have a right to do, made a judgment late in the general election campaign that changed the position. It is not fair to expect people to abide by a judgment made so late in a campaign, especially given that they had abided by the rules for 21 days previously.

I am referring to the next general election.

There are new rules for the next election.

In that regard, is it the case, as the publicity that has preceded this code suggests, that ministerial facilities may only be used for official purposes? Will the Taoiseach explain again how that will be monitored?

Has the Taoiseach any information about whether the Standards in Public Office Commission standardised what was attributable to election expenses or otherwise? Leaving aside the question of ministerial overruns and the fact that Ministers did not know before the general election, how can one Minister have an overrun of—

We are going well outside the realm of the five questions submitted which deal with the new code of conduct for officeholders. We cannot discuss individual items that are not related to the five questions under discussion.

I do not mean to do that but I would like to see the situation I posit dealt with in the new code. How is it that one Minister can overshoot by €28,000—

Again, the question is outside the realm of the questions tabled. I suggest the Deputy submit a question relevant to the point he raises.

The point is relevant to the code. There is no point in our launching a new code if we do not deal with the issues that have arisen. I do not refer to any specific—

Perhaps when we see the code, the Deputy can submit a question.

Can I put it this way? Why should one officeholder overshoot by €28,000 while another, equidistant from Dublin, does not overshoot at all?

The issue does not arise.

Has the commission communicated to Government what standards it applies that might explain why this could happen in one case and not in another?

The commission issued standards at the time, but some Ministers included everything just to be certain while others followed clearly the interpretation set down in the Standards in Public Office Act. My approach in recent years as Taoiseach has been to include everything because I am unsure whether items should be included. I include everything in all returns. Someone can then work out whether I should have included certain items. If they are not included, there is criticism for not doing so and I have been on the receiving end of this on a few occasions.

The Standards in Public Office Commission will in that case return the Taoiseach's declaration and state that certain items have not been included. Therefore, in the case of what is properly included, how can there be such a difference between two Ministers?

The commission did not do that with anyone.

It did it to me.

Not with Ministers.

To what Minister did it do that?

No, it did it to Deputies.

I was referring to Ministers in reply to Deputy Rabbitte.

Is the Taoiseach saying—

Allow the Taoiseach to reply, without interruption. We cannot have a long debate on this matter.

Deputy Rabbitte's question related to Ministers and I was answering about them specifically. The Standards in Public Office Commission laid down the position. Some Ministers included more than was necessary and others did not.

I asked earlier whether the code of conduct would be brought before the Houses of the Oireachtas. The Taoiseach indicated in his response that it will be published next week. Will the opportunity to debate the code of

conduct—

The Deputy is being repetitive and we want to move on to the next question.

I am being repetitive with my question because I have not received an answer.

The Deputy is being repetitive with his question. He asked the Taoiseach if the code of conduct would be brought before the House and he has asked if there will be a debate.

Will we be allowed to discuss the code of conduct in the Houses of the Oireachtas and how soon if publication is signalled for the coming week?

I will explain what has been published. The legislation is in place. It is was discussed in the House and has been enacted for two years. It is law. All that is being done is the issuing of a code of practice based on that legislation. There is no discussion. We will have to implement its conditions.

Deputy Durkan.

There is every need to have a debate in the Chamber on such an important issue.

Allow Deputy Durkan, please. The Deputy has made his point.

Will the Taoiseach state whether a ban on exorbitant pre-election spending will be included in the code of conduct?

Deputy Ó Caoláin, Deputy Durkan has been called.

Deputy Ó Caoláin is in no position to comment. I would love to have their money.

Arising from the Taoiseach's reply regarding the interpretation of the rules in so far as the code of conduct and the Electoral Acts are concerned, why is there a discrepancy in that it seems acceptable for some people to exceed spending limits set down by the Standards in Public Office Commission while other Deputies are informed by the commission—

The Deputy is well outside the realm of the questions under discussion.

It is relevant to what the Taoiseach said.

The Taoiseach has already replied.

My question arises from his reply. Why is it that the Standards in Public Office Commission informed us what to submit and a discrepancy arose, as pointed out by the Taoiseach, in interpretation? Why should we on this side of the House—

The Deputy should submit a question on that matter. It does not arise out of the five questions tabled.

The Taoiseach can answer the question if there is an answer to it.

I have already answered it in reply to Deputy Rabbitte.

There is no answer.

It depends on what is included.

It does not.

We cannot open up a debate on an issue that is not relevant to the five questions under discussion.

Regarding office-holders and the need to comply with regulations and have a fair approach for all Members and citizens standing for election, will the Taoiseach explain why he suggests that, to address that matter and as a response to over-spending, there should be an increase in corporate funding? Why would that be a good idea given that the then Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Noel Dempsey, increased the spending limits by up to 45% and increased corporate funding limits prior to the previous general election?

Again, we are going well outside the realm of the questions under discussion.

I am trying to understand the Taoiseach's reasoning in this and ensure there is fairness.

The Deputy has made his point.

The Minister will introduce legislation in due course, if that is finally decided, and these matters can be discussed then.

No answer.

Does the Taoiseach accept that Opposition parties have a legitimate interest in this in so far as significant competitive advantage is conferred on office-holders? For example, a question tabled by my colleague, Deputy Gilmore, last week showed that Ministers and Ministers of State have the assistance in their private and constituency offices of 389 personnel—

Again, we are going well outside the realm of the five questions under discussion. I would prefer that we dealt with the Order Paper as presented to the House than ask questions, for some of which the Taoiseach has no responsibility, such as the returns of individual Members.

—at a cost of €12.5 million. That confers a significant competitive advantage.

The Deputy has made his point.

No, I have not. That was by way of illustration.

He has strayed outside the realm of the five questions under discussion.

No, it was by way of illustration. Does the Taoiseach accept that the criteria imposed by the Standards in Public Office Commission on office-holders does not relate to what the commission is told but rather depends on what it is supposed to be told? It is not a question, as the Taoiseach says, that he tells it everything and therefore these discrepancies occur.

Allow the Taoiseach to reply.

My understanding is that the Standards in Public Office Commission requires a Member to tell it X, Y and Z.

The Deputy is making a statement. Allow the Taoiseach to reply.

If the commission is told something additional to X, Y and Z that is not relevant, it rejects it and sends it back.

It is not included.

It depends on what use a Minister makes of staff in the Department or constituency office during the general election campaign. Some Ministers did not use any of their people and had no contact with them. A number of Ministers were in that position. Others would have had contact and therefore the cost would have had to be included. The parameters were set down but some people put forward the total costs rather than getting into an argument while others followed the strict interpretation, and they were quite entitled to do that.

Barr
Roinn