Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)

I have answered that question many times. The code of conduct does not stand in isolation. It is part of the wider ethics framework established by the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995 and the Standards in Public Office Act 2001. Section 10(7) of the Standards in Public Office Act binds office holders to have regard to and be guided by the code. The code is linked directly to the powers of the two legislative measures. The reason for the existence of the code was to lay out the terms of the legislation in straightforward, layman's English. That is what it does.

The code cannot impose any new requirements that are not already set out in the legislation; it cannot go beyond what the law provides. It mainly attempts to provide guidance at a level of detail that would be difficult to express in legislation. It can be, and has been, used by the Standards in Public Office Commission as a guide when a complaint is made under section 4 of the Act as to how the complaint should be investigated. The code, therefore, is tied into the legislation and into the operation of the Standards in Public Office Commission. Complaints can be made about breaches of the ethics Acts under section 4.

With regard to the Deputy's question, I do not wish to discuss the specific details regarding a single individual but a review of the code is under way. This issue arises regularly after every election, or at least has done after the last three elections. What is the position of a person who has left politics and goes straight into another position outside the House? There is reference to this in either the code or the Cabinet handbook; I cannot recall which. It advises people to be careful. It is a little vague in my view. I would prefer a cut and dried requirement.

Is there a preferable period for such a move? In some countries there is no specified period while in others there is a fixed period. In our system it is open to interpretation. The interpretation is then used to criticise the individual, one way or another. From the point of view of an individual who leaves the House, it would be better if the code provided that the individual cannot do X, Y or Z for three or six months. If one goes beyond that, how is a person supposed to live? It is unfair. It would be better if the position was clarified. It is unsatisfactory that an individual can be made to feel they did something wrong, which is part of this country's culture anyway. I would prefer if the matter was cut and dried, and it stated that the person cannot do X, Y or Z for a certain period.

See this speech in context