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

Question 4: To ask the Taoiseach if he has plans to amend the code of conduct for office holders; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16810/07]

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

Question 5: To ask the Taoiseach if it is his intention to amend the code of conduct for office holders; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18785/07]

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 6: To ask the Taoiseach his views on changes to the code of conduct for office holders; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20155/07]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 6, inclusive, together.

The code of conduct for office holders was drawn up by the Government pursuant to section 10(2) of the Standards in Public Office Act 2001, following consultation with the Standards in Public Office Commission, and published in July 2003.

Deputies will be aware that changes are to be made to the ethics framework upon the enactment of the Ethics in Public Office (Amendment) Bill 2007, which is due to be discussed before the Dáil in the current session. I intend to carry out a review of the code, in consultation with the Standards in Public Office Commission, as soon as the amending legislation has been enacted.

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

Is a copy of the code of conduct available in the Oireachtas Library for Members to read the rules of the code as they currently obtain?

I note the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea, apologised to a lady in Limerick for remarks he made. I am sure the Taoiseach accepts that this is the proper response from the Minister who therefore must have said something akin to what was reported. We have dealt with the motion of confidence in the Taoiseach and he has had some exposure to more forensic questioning than I have an opportunity to ask him in the House.

The regulations and rules are different now. When the Taoiseach was Minister for Finance, persons known to him made financial contributions to him. Even now does the Taoiseach accept that, as Minister for Finance, the highest ranking Minister besides the Taoiseach, the acceptance of this kind of contribution was wrong? Does he accept that such conduct was completely unbecoming for a serving Minister, despite whatever pressures they may experience? I ask the Taoiseach to comment, given that we are at a remove from the glare of intense coverage that was recently applied to him?

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

If a copy of the code of conduct is not in the Oireachtas Library, it is not a secret document. The code applies to office holders, namely the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, Ministers and Ministers of State, the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Dáil and the Seanad. It is a public document and I think there is a copy in the Oireachtas Library.

With regard to the other question which I have been asked a number of times, this issue arose in 1995 when the new legislation was enacted and in 1997 and 2001. I would have been required under the law to declare those issues and I would have had no difficulty doing so. To be frank, I would not have lodged those moneys into what is the busiest bank in the main street of the capital of the country, one of the busiest branches of Allied Irish Bank, if I thought there was anything wrong in doing so. There would be a million ways for somebody who wanted to do something wrong. I was totally up-front in what I did because I saw nothing wrong and that is the reason I lodged the money into my bank account.

I have already admitted that, with regard to the Manchester money, it may have been unwise at the time. Even now, until this legislation is changed, the receipt of money from personal friends is not in any way wrong, illegal, unjust or improper. I received the money on the basis of loans that I would repay and not on the basis that the money was a gift that I would never repay. I received it at a time of difficulty, during a short period in 1994-95 and that was the basis for repayment, which is what I did. It was not a question of receiving money from some dodgy source or somebody with whom I was not acquainted. These are people with whom I have been associated for 30 years. They are friends and not even political friends. Some of them have been friends of mine since our school days. The Deputy has asked a fair question, but I do not regard what I did as wrong. If the Deputy asked whether I would have been better off if I did not accept the money, I would agree. Having been dealing with the issue for seven and a half years, I agree it would have been better, but I do not regard it as something that was wrong of me to do.

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

The Taoiseach speaks of school friends making personal loans or making moneys available. I am not sure if he used the term, "dodgy people" or "dodgy issues".

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

It was not something that could in any way be considered dodgy.

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

That is fine. One of those people who made a contribution, Mr. O'Connor, made it on the basis that it was for the Fianna Fáil Party. He said publicly he was not a personal friend of the Taoiseach. How does that tie in with the other school friends who made personal contributions to the Taoiseach?

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

This is public evidence so I have no difficulty answering the question. I was clearly told that what Mr. O'Connor gave to another friend of mine was for me. Twelve years later, however, he has said it was not. I believe I know why that has happened, given the way it was paid. However, the only thing ever said to me was that it was given for me.

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

The Code of Conduct for Office Holders states with regard to people who move from Government office to private business that "...office holders should act in a way which ensures it could not be reasonably concluded that... an unfair advantage would be conferred in a new appointment by virtue of, for example, access to official information the office holder previously enjoyed". The former Minister of State and Deputy, Mr. Tom Parlon, got a top job with the Construction Industry Federation following the recent general election. As a Minister of State he had access to privileged information, not least with regard to the decentralisation programme. He was also responsible for the Office of Public Works.

I am not suggesting that Mr. Parlon did anything wrong. However, the code of conduct states that former office holders "should be careful to avoid any real or apparent conflict of interest with the office they formerly occupied". It is no secret that this Government has had a special relationship with the construction industry down through the years——

Michael Ahern (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

And with 40% of the population.

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

——and it has allowed the industry to dictate housing policy, often against the interests of ordinary people accessing affordable homes. In the context of Mr. Parlon's example, does the Taoiseach believe that the code of conduct and the sections I have cited need to be re-examined and strengthened? What sanctions, if any, exist for former office holders who act in breach of the code of conduct? Is it a voluntary matter that office holders accede to the terms of the code of conduct or are there sanctions that can be brought to bear? Will the Taoiseach outline what, if any, procedure exists?

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

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.

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

I welcome the Taoiseach's stated preference for certainty being enshrined in whatever booklet applies, be it the Cabinet handbook or otherwise. Indeed, the Taoiseach might send me a copy of the Cabinet handbook. I have never seen it but it is worth examining as well. What method will be employed in the review of the code of conduct? The Taoiseach said a review is under way. Who is conducting it? Is there is a timeframe within which they will report? Will the recommendations made be brought before the House for further scrutiny and debate and for the input of Members of the Oireachtas? Does the Taoiseach have a role in the review? Given his comments today, is it not important that the Taoiseach's view on the importance of certainty in this area should be placed in the code of conduct? What steps will the Taoiseach take, following this matter being raised this morning?

Earlier this morning the Taoiseach said, in response to Deputy Kenny, that the Deputy was "dead right" and that the Taoiseach wished that things were otherwise. With regard to former Deputy Parlon's case and with no implication of wrong doing, does the Taoiseach agree that, given the portfolio Mr. Parlon held and the post he took up with such speed following the general election, he might have been better advised to wait for a reasonable period of time? We accept that people, following their years of service in this institution, have the right to a future in employment. However, standards must be set and the code of conduct must reflect them. I agree with the Taoiseach that certainty should be enshrined therein.

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

I will not give my views on individual cases. If one does that with one and not with others, it is unfair. The review will be carried out by the Cabinet secretariat. Obviously, I will have a say in that and I will raise the issue I raised today. The Cabinet secretariat will do the review in consultation with the Standards in Public Office Commission.

I feel strongly about this matter because it is raised regularly. When a Member of the House leaves the House it is unfair for them to be treated differently from leaving any other job. The Dáil has turned over 34% of its Members in the last four or five elections. They should not be tainted. Several questions are raised every time about whether something is outside a fixed period. People must live, particularly younger Members who leave the House and who have young families and must get on with another career. If there is to be a rule, I do not think that it should be that they should be careful, look at it or take it into account. How does one do so? Any Member of the House, office holders or non-office holders, will have met and associated with people. Is it the case that when they enter the House, they cannot do this or that?

I have looked at what happens in other jurisdictions because the issue was raised several times during the past ten years. Either they do nothing and the person is entitled to do whatever he or she likes the following day or they have a fixed period. Our position is that the onus is put on a Member that they should be careful about this, that and the other and I do not think this is practical.

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I should remind Members that people outside the House may not be the subject of either blame or praise in the House. This is a long-standing precedent and in the case of former Deputy Parlon I allowed the questions because it was in the public domain prior to this and no impropriety was being suggested on the part of former Deputy Parlon.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The net point with regard to the former Minister of State, Mr. Parlon, is that had he been a senior civil servant in the OPW who transferred to a job directly connected with his previous job of overseeing considerable volumes of capital State expenditure in construction projects, under the code of ethics he would have been required to contact either the Secretary General of the Department or the appointments board for advice on what is a conflict of interest.

Did the former Minister of State advise the Government, the Secretary General to the Government or the Secretary General of his former Department that he was undertaking a position which could give rise to the perception of a conflict of interest if not an actual one? The rule for senior civil servants, which we debated at length here, is that unless they are advised it is all right they must wait 12 months. People on all sides of the House agreed, in the context of generous departure and retirement arrangements for senior civil servants and Members of the House, that not allowing a buffer period of time to elapse is wrong and sends out the wrong message. One day one looks after the job in Government of spending hundreds of millions on construction contracts and the next day one changes hats and does the same job for the Construction Industry Federation. If we have a good rule for senior civil servants, why do we not have it for people such as the former Minister of State?

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

It is a point to be considered in the review. It is not there at present. In my experience, I have not seen any former civil servants being advised that they should not take up positions. Members will note they all move on very quickly and the best of luck to them. The answer to the question whether the former Minister of State Mr. Parlon asked me or the Government is "no". He had no obligation to do so. There is no procedure or rule that he had to do so.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In the context of ethics and the code of conduct as it stands at present, would the Taoiseach feel comfortable if the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, met a group of people informally either in or outside Ireland to talk to them about the economy, how the State is doing and where he sees the economy going during the next 12 months and at the end of the meeting the group had a whip-around and gave him €10,000 which he took away as a personal gift? Would the Taoiseach be comfortable if any other Minister so behaved?

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

He would follow the ethics issue of the day. I note that many office holders have functions and golf outings at which they do precisely that and declare them. As Deputy Shatter knows, nowhere better than the legal profession——

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not talking about political donations or funds raised for political purposes. If the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, or any Minister sat down today with a group of people, gave them a briefing on the economy for more than an hour and they had a whip-around — not for his political campaigning or purposes, not a political donation, but because they decided he was a nice guy and needed a few bob — and gave him €10,000, would the Taoiseach be comfortable with this behaviour? Would he expect a Minister in his Government to retain those funds for his or her own purposes?

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

A Minister today must abide by the code and legislation and obviously one cannot do that.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Previously, the Taoiseach stated there is nothing in the law at present to prevent a Minister so behaving.

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

I stated that with regard to friends. Deputy Shatter put it in a different context.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If the group were the Minister, Deputy Cowen's friends and he had met them a couple of times before, would the Taoiseach be comfortable with it? Is he aware and does he accept that former Ministers such as Deputy O'Rourke have stated that if they were offered funds in these circumstances, they would not accept them?

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

I accept that the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, Deputy O'Rourke and anyone else would now follow the code of conduct and the legislation. That is what I would do also.