Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank all Deputies for their contributions and for the warm welcome everyone has given to this legislation. All the legislation I have introduced over the past five years - this is likely to be the last of this Dáil - has not received unanimous welcome and support, although some legislation concerning ethics has. I will reserve some of my commentary because this Second Stage debate is supposed to adjourn at 4.30 p.m. I will try to conclude my remarks by then but I will leave the rest of the response until Committee Stage. I am not certain if I will be present then but I will take careful note of all the points made.

Deputy Fleming made a general point which was echoed by every speaker. He said that ethics should happen without the compulsory nature of legislation - it should be the natural environment in which public officials operate. Unfortunately, human nature requires us to sometimes ensure there is a legal framework and sanction for the minority of people who break rules of normal ethical behaviour. He also made the point that our regulation should be proportionate and I strongly agree with that. It links into the other point he made about movement from the public sector to the private sector.

There is a balance to be struck because all Members are agreed on the need for the availability of movement. However, it must be done on the basis that nobody is looking to the private sector when he or she is still in the public sector and bringing a capacity to overcome the will of the Oireachtas by knowing an insider track for somebody. While this balance must be struck, I acknowledge it is difficult to so do.

The silo mentality is an issue on which Deputy Sean Fleming touched and it is being addressed through the public sector reform agenda. I will be able to deal with that issue when Members debate public sector reform. I agree strongly with him with regard to training and I will deal with the issue of the confidential documents.

Deputy Fleming also mentioned the suspension of Members of the House. A process is set out in the Bill regarding that sanction should there be an investigation, should that investigation find serious fault against a Member of the Oireachtas and should it be validated by a court. It will then be up to the Committee on Members' Interests of the House to make a determination as to whether that Member should be suspended because this would be the prerogative of the relevant House itself, be it this House or the other House, depending on the House of which the individual concerned holds membership. Members can go through this process in some detail. I also wished to make sure this provision reached out to the European Parliament in respect of its membership, as its policies and laws have a direct impact on Irish citizens. Consequently, the same ethical code should apply there and that is why reports can be presented to the President of the European Parliament under this legislation.

Deputy Fleming mentioned one further point on where the A, B and C categories might overlap and whether there is a difficulty whereby people may be obliged to make multiple declarations. The Bill is clear and I will make it even more clear in setting it out post-enactment, that is, if one is captured by a number of categories, one simply makes a declaration under the highest category that applies to one. In other words, if categories A, B and C apply to one, one is a category A declarer under that regime. Deputy Fleming also mentioned the deputy commissioner and wondered what would happen were the deputy commissioner to be ill. Under the legislation, the deputy commissioner is appointed from among the staff of the commission. He or she is appointed by the Minister after consulting with the commissioner. It is possible for the deputy commissioner to assign his or her role in an investigation to another member of the investigation team should he or she become ill during an investigation or some such event. Members can work out the procedures in this regard. They are normal procedures that would apply to any analogous body of this sort but that is a level of detail into which Members can get on Committee Stage.

Deputy McDonald again generally welcomed the provisions of the Bill. Unfortunately, she then anchored it all in a lost opportunity, as though this was the only ethics legislation the Government had presented to this Oireachtas. This has been a reforming Oireachtas although Members were largely focused, as was the nation for the last five years, on Ireland's economic collapse and, as a Parliament, as a Government and as a people, on working towards recovery as the prime objective. The reform side of that mandate was a criticalraison d'êtrefor the establishment of my Department, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. In addition, bringing in reform of the country's ethics framework to restore public confidence was an important part of the work the Government has both undertaken and delivered over the past five years.

It is unfortunate that Deputy McDonald would not acknowledge this because she then dismissed all the incredible amount of work done by both the Oireachtas itself in pre-legislative scrutiny and external analysis and the work of my officials over the past five years in bringing in legislation such as the Ombudsman (Amendment) Act. That legislation encompassed the biggest expansion of the powers of the Ombudsman since the Office of the Ombudsman was created in the first instance. Similarly, the whistleblowing legislation provided for the first ever overarching protection of whistleblowers in both the private and public spheres. I believe Deputy Durkan mentioned the first reporting under the Regulation of Lobbying Act will take place in the coming days. It is groundbreaking, difficult and complicated legislation. Moreover, a huge amount of time, effort and debate went into the restoration of the Freedom of Information Act and the Oireachtas inquiries legislation was the anchor that allowed the banking inquiry to be held after the people rejected giving additional powers to the Oireachtas by way of constitutional amendment. More reform has taken place in the lifetime of this Oireachtas than in a previous generation and this should be acknowledged.

In many ways, this legislation is the final piece of the jigsaw. As I stated in my opening comments, Members now have before them the overarching legislation that links together everything else because it takes account of the tribunals, many of which were still being finalised in respect of their reporting in the past couple of years. The Bill also takes account of the dialogue the Government has had with the Standards in Public Office Commission, SIPO, in its various reports, as well as the dialogue it has had with international bodies to ascertain what best practice entails. The joining of the Open Government Partnership, which is a world body set up to examine standards in governance to build public confidence therein has been an important part of all of this.

I will turn to some of the comments of other Members. Deputy Finian McGrath also welcomed the Bill, for which I thank him. He referred to the public sector standards commissioner and asked how that official is to be appointed. Section 26 provides that the public sector standards commissioner will be appointed by the President following a resolution passed by each House of the Oireachtas. Consequently, it is an open and transparent system analogous to the manner in which the Ombudsman is appointed. I imagine the same open recruiting system used for the Ombudsman also will be used in an open trawl of anyone who wishes to apply for the job, followed by vetting and then a final determination by the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Deputy Daly referred to setting out a new standards regime and that is very important because the bringing about of a cultural change is sought. One can do so much by legislation but a cultural change must be brought about. The Deputy also made a valid point about identifying officials. I have always taken a jaundiced view about the thousands of letters that go out signed by officials stating they have been directed by the Minister, as though the latter had any notion of the thousands of letters going out nominally in his or her name, and in this context, Ministers are corporations sole. Under the new transparency regime in the Civil Service, clear responsibility is being assigned. I invite Members of the House to look at a new website, www.whodoeswhat.gov.ie, which identifies officials and their functions and will bring in greater accountability. I disagree with the Deputy regarding his comment about the trade unions. The idea that a management system would allow trade unions to determine at what time tea is served is a management failure, not a trade union failure.

See this speech in context