Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 6: To ask the Taoiseach if, in view of recent comments of the Standards in Public Office Commission, he has plans to amend the code of conduct for office holders; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28201/06]

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 7: To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on the guidelines governing the use of civil servants to brief Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas; if he will outline these guidelines; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30668/06]

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 8: To ask the Taoiseach the plans he has to amend or update the code of conduct for office holders; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30873/06]

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 9: To ask the Taoiseach if he plans to amend the code of conduct for office holders; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32249/06]

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 to 9, inclusive, together.

The code of conduct for office holders was published by the Government in July 2003 pursuant to section 10(2) of the Standards in Public Office Act 2001, following consultation with the Standards in Public Office Commission. On two occasions since the code was launched, I have provided office holders with additional guidance on it in the light of views expressed by the commission. The first occasion was in regard to the use of public resources in the context of public events or advertising. On the second occasion, the guidance related to briefings by civil servants to Members of the Oireachtas.

Deputies will be aware that on 10 October 2006, the Tánaiste and I announced that the Government will bring forward an amendment to the existing ethics legislation to provide that any office holder, or Member of the Dáil or Seanad, who accepts a gift or loan from a friend for personal purposes shall seek the confidential opinion of the Standards in Public Office Commission as to whether the gift or loan in the particular circumstances would be likely to compromise the recipient in the discharge of his or her duties. The House will have an opportunity to discuss this in detail when the relevant Bill is introduced shortly by the Minister for Finance.

When the amending legislation is enacted, the Government, in consultation with the Standards in Public Office Commission, will consider the need to update the code of conduct. Whenever the code is to be updated, it will reflect the additional guidance I have already conveyed to office holders and any further guidance that may be required consequent to enactment of the amending legislation.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have had some discussion about this in the recent past. Paragraph 2.2.8 of the code of conduct for office holders states:

Office holders should be particularly sensitive of acceptance of gifts or hospitality from friends, or connected persons, as defined in the 1995 Act, where such persons have, or are likely to obtain, a benefit or suffer a loss arising from a decision made, or to be made, by an office holder or by the Government, of which the office holder is aware.

The Taoiseach has stated the legislation cobbled together by him and the Tánaiste will be brought forward by the Minister for Finance shortly. When is that likely to appear? Will the legislation on the code of conduct for office holders include proposals to change the code to allow Ministers or Ministers of State to declare themselves as acting in a personal capacity, as distinct from a ministerial capacity, in order to receive gifts, loans or whatever and that they will not feel compromised as a consequence?

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not appropriate to discuss what might be in legislation.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Of course it is.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is not the Order of Business.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I refer to the code of conduct for office holders which was a matter of some controversy recently. One cannot make legislation retrospective so it cannot apply to previous ministerial office holders. Does the Taoiseach believe it is possible to put in place a structure where Minister X can say he or she is receiving a gift, loan or whatever, in a personal capacity? In the case of a Minister travelling to America, England or elsewhere in Europe, where he or she may be likely to receive a gift or whatever, should he or she notify the Taoiseach or the Standards in Public Office Commission in advance or will it be the case that if a Minister receives a gift, loan or whatever for personal purposes that the position can be rectified on his or her return? Is it possible to take off one's hat and say one is acting in a personal capacity, as distinct from carrying out a public duty?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If one receives a gift in a personal or any other capacity, one would have to check with the Standards in Public Office Commission. Otherwise, one could not accept anything. The code will have to be designed in the same way.

The Deputy is correct about retrospective legislation, but I should say to Members following my recent experiences that even though the code of conduct relating to ethics dates to 1995 and 2000, the Standards in Public Office Commission dates to 2001 and the legislation relating to public funding dates to 1997. The code was updated twice since then. Whenever one gets into any difficulty it does not matter what is retrospective but none of these things applied when I was there; everyone just ignores that point. Retrospective legislation applies to every other case but when it concerns an individual, unfortunately, it does not.

I accept Deputy Kenny's point that it will have to be clear that whatever the circumstances in which one receives something, one must check with the Standards in Public Office Commission.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My question relates to the use of civil servants to brief Members. The briefings given in regard to Northern Ireland have been most welcome and appreciated. The Taoiseach sent a letter to Ministers and Ministers of State in August which is quite Jesuitical in some ways. It states, "in future office holders should not request civil servants to conduct briefings in settings such as parliamentary party meetings". It further states, "but it would not be inappropriate to provide a technical or factual briefing to a group of Members set up by a parliamentary party to deal with a particular issue". Does the Taoiseach wish to bring any clarity to these guidelines, given that a sub-group of a parliamentary party is not inappropriate but a parliamentary party is inappropriate? We appear to be dealing with very fine lines here. Will the Taoiseach clarify the position so that neither we nor the Government would get on the wrong side of that line? Both examples appear to be very similar to me. Has the Taoiseach's own parliamentary party been briefed recently by civil servants and, if so, on what issues?

As Deputy Kenny mentioned, we have had a considerable amount of public debate on the appropriateness of office holders accepting gifts or loans and the need to consult with the Standards in Public Office Commission. In the Taoiseach's statement on that matter, it mentions that failure to abide by the opinion of the commission would constitute an offence. Can the Taoiseach indicate what type of sanction is being considered for such an offence? Is it a resigning matter, as it probably would be across the water, or what does the Taoiseach intend by a sanction in that regard?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That point will have to be worked out in the legislation.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Taoiseach have no idea?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It could be made a criminal offence but it will have to be worked out. The bottom line is that there must be some penalty. It will have to be examined.

We discussed the first issue previously. The point made by the Standards in Public Office Commission is that civil servants should not be used in a political fashion, but that the age old tradition of civil servants being able to brief Members of the Oireachtas, or a group of Members of the Oireachtas of any party, who were engaged in the preparation or examination of a technically complex Bill, which is the case with many Bills, would be greatly beneficial.

A civil servant could have worked on a Bill for six or seven years. I brought in the Industrial Relations Act 1990. The Bill had been a live one in the Department for 23 years. I recall at the time that numerous briefings were given to Members of this House, trade unions, employers' groups and chambers of commerce. To expect any Member of the House to grasp incredibly technical Bills — I have brought in health and safety Bills and other Bills — is nonsense. To say that Members should not gain the benefit of someone who is an expert, has studied the matter inside and out, knows the section and would be able to brief people would be a nonsense. Having a civil servant march into a meeting of an entire parliamentary party meeting and engage with it is a different matter.

It has always been the practice that parliamentary party-nominated groups or subgroups examine Bills. Governments have always made officials available if emergency legislation is introduced or a loophole must be closed because of a European judgment. That is an appropriate way to conduct business. To breach that practice would be wrong and would damage the House.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach may have said when it is proposed to introduce the amendment to the ethics Act.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The very near future.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Let us call a spade a spade. The amendment is a face-saver for the Tánaiste in light of the recent controversy. We do not need legislation to——

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Deputy have a question?

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes. Do we need legislation to get someone else to adjudicate on whether a gift should be accepted? It is a face-saver and a fig leaf for the Tánaiste, although I do not want to confuse the different parts of his anatomy.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy should ask his question because we are running late.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is nonsense. If we are to make an amendment to get past what was referred to as last week's little turbulence, will the Government include the commission's request to be allowed to investigate matters where a complaint is not formally laid?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The point was made that the loophole in the legislation should be closed off. If a Member of the House receives a part of a property or land from a relation in future, will he or she be able to accept it? The amendment will create a mechanism to check that. It is a good idea. I would not like to see the House turn into the greatest purist in the world, which it is fast becoming. We would lose good Members because of that kind of view. I have watched the House change dramatically over the years. If one needs to check something — from my own experience with checking, when in doubt, the answer is always "No" — it is better to have a vehicle through which to do that. This loophole has been pointed out by commentators inside and outside the House.

I have read in newspapers that the Standards in Public Office Commission believes it should be able to investigate a matter without a complaint being made. From my experience as Taoiseach, there is no end of people who are prepared to write anonymously or otherwise and say things about Members. I could have collected a book of them in the last month, but I shredded all of the comments because I do not believe in that kind of politics. I have not noticed any problem regarding people in the public or the media not complaining about Members of the House. From my experience, the opposite is the case. If there is a coherent argument that the Standards in Public Office Commission has difficulty getting people to complain about Members, I will listen to it, but it is not the problem from where I sit.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is no doubt that the Taoiseach is good; that is a plausible line. Let us put it on the record.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Deputy have a question?

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do. It is difficult to see the loophole, but I do not want to argue with the Taoiseach. If he is intent on this and the Tánaiste is happy, I too am happy and the Labour Party will support the legislation.

John Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

For a change.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are introducing amending legislation of little importance. If we are refurbishing the legislation, why will the Government not take on board the explicit recommendation of the commission to the effect that it needs the power to initiate investigations if it is to do its job? Is it being suggested that the eminent members of the commission would embark on a mischievous inquiry for the sake of it?

I know what the Taoiseach means about anonymous complainants, telephone calls and so on because I have the same experiences all of the time. This morning, I received a telephone call from an irate man who had a letter published in a newspaper.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy should confine himself to his question.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He claimed that I rang his wife and complained about the letter, but I never made any——

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He should not have done that.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Disgraceful. It is of deep concern.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Tánaiste. I never made any such telephone call, but my name was used by the person who did. I know that such behaviour can occur.

If this legislation is to be introduced and the commission, which comprises eminent and true citizens, has made the recommendation to the Government that it needs a power that will make all of our lives easier, why will the Government not tell the commission that it should have the power?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not aware whether the recommendation was made officially, but if the commission has made it to the Minister for Finance, I am sure he will consider it.

If I could put myself in the position of a Member as distinct from Taoiseach for a minute, why would the commission want this power? Why would the commission want to pick on a Member about whom no complaint has been made? What would the commission be examining? Is it the fact——

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Government has entrusted the commission with onerous responsibilities under existing legislation——

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This was a power——

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——which it believes it cannot vindicate without listening to extremists.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am sure the commission will make an argument about that to the Minister, but I just want——

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It did, but he turned it down.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

For the protection of Members of the House more than anything else, I will make my argument. I cannot see a situation where a Member would be involved in a controversy but no one would make a complaint against him or her. We know what happens. If there is any controversy, people will send in letters that the commission must examine. There would be no lack of such people among the public. If somebody is mentioned in a newspaper, should the commission investigate the matter? Where does it end? I would like to see the argument. We should not start to regulate ourselves into that position. Members are under enough pressure work-wise. I would consider any fair argument.

On something being written about someone in the House, the Deputy and I know that I would keep all of the law offices in town working full-time if I were to correct all of the things written about us that are incorrect. Would they be justification enough for someone to take up the matter and follow it through? If it were the Deputy, me or someone else, I would like to think that there would be justification for the investigation. I would like to see the argument. I could just stand up and say that the commission should make the recommendation to the Department of Finance, but I am not sure. Where will the witch hunts concerning Members start and end in future? People should be careful.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Taoiseach not have confidence in the commission? It is not composed of the type of people who would make a mischievous or frivolous investigation.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Many of the issues raised from time to time are both mischievous and frivolous. I would like to see the counterargument. I do not see where there is a difficulty. Whenever there is a controversy many people write in complaining about this, that and the other. I get letters if a Member from either side of the House does practically anything nonsensical. Much of this is merely jumping on the Members and we should be careful of it. If somebody does something wrong, there is an investigation and that is grand.

However, I would like to see the argument. I have not seen the argument and I cannot think of a situation where there was some issue. I would hate to think there would be somebody every Monday morning in the future going through all 40 of the weekend newspapers to see what letter they would send out to some Member of the House about this, that or the other. If that is the kind of business envisaged, I would be totally against it.

If the commission could convince me that there was a case where some member of the public might be afraid to write into the commission about a complaint, I will listen to that argument.

I just do not see the argument. I see the capacity to be witch hunting Members of this House in the future and, frankly, I have been on the wrong side of that a number of times. We in the House should be careful about the future. I would like to see people make the case.

I set up the Ethics in Public Office Commission. I argued for it. I brought it together. At the time I had many arguments trying to convince others to do it, and that was left out of it. It should not be an extended power. In some of these matters, when we are reviewing it at other times, we should perhaps be looking at limiting it.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When last amending legislation was being considered in this regard, is it the case that it ran into difficulty as the commission had sought from the Government a legal definition of "friend", which was not forthcoming at that time? Given the term "friend" has very much occupied the Taoiseach's thoughts for some considerable time, has he been able to advance the proposition and is the Government now in a position to offer a legal definition of "friend"?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The current ethics legislation does not define "friend". This is the point. In the absence of any clarification in the ethics legislation, the term "friend" would have the meaning normally associated with the word in every day usage and the commission previously commented that this was a complicating factor, and that is why it is an issue that must be dealt with.