Dáil debates

Wednesday, 7 October 2009

Ceisteanna - Questions

Codes of Conduct.

10:30 am

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

Question 1: To ask the Taoiseach the rules in place in his Department governing the acceptance of hospitality by Ministers from State agencies; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25636/09]

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

Question 2: To ask the Taoiseach the rules governing the receipt of hospitality by Ministers or Ministers of State from State agencies or State bodies; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32520/09]

Photo of Brian CowenBrian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.

The code of conduct for officeholders, published by the Standards in Public Office Commission, sets out among other things a framework for acceptance of hospitality. Briefly, the code provides that officeholders should not accept offers of hospitality where to do so would, or might appear to, place them under an obligation. The code also provides that officeholders should not accept offers to meet the costs of travel facilities and-or commercial accommodation in connection with official activities where such offers are made by private citizens or private enterprises but that discretion may be used where an officeholder is the official guest of another Government or official body or of a not-for-profit representative organisation or the like.

For obvious reasons, restrictions in the code of conduct for officeholders do not apply to any offer or supply of property or a service made in the course of and for the purpose of performance of duties of an officeholder.

The Department of Finance's code of practice for the governance of State bodies, which was recently updated and re-issued on 15 June, provides a framework for the application of best practice in corporate governance by both commercial and non-commercial State bodies. The code lays down that all State bodies should have written codes of business conduct for their directors and employees and makes clear that such a code should address as a fundamental issue of principle avoidance of giving or receiving corporate gifts, hospitality, preferential treatment or benefits which may affect or appear to affect the ability of a donor or the recipient to make independent judgment on business transactions.

The code of practice reminds directors and employees of State bodies that they should be guided by the principles set out in the code in meeting their responsibilities to ensure that all their activities, whether covered specifically or otherwise in the code, meet the highest standards of corporate governance.

In certain circumstances, receipt of hospitality could constitute a gift. If a Minister were to receive a gift worth more than €650 from a State agency, it would be deemed to be a gift given by virtue of office and would have to be surrendered to the State. It would also have to be declared in the Minister's annual statement of registerable interests.

11:00 am

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

I did not catch all of the Taoiseach's reply. FÁS, which was a case in point, has received massive coverage in recent months and for good reason. There was clearly a lack of oversight and judgment as to what was going on in that organisation. I referred yesterday to the comments by the Taoiseach about the former chief executive and noted that the Tánaiste appeared to know very little about what was going on in FÁS. In view of the very changed circumstances in which we find ourselves in regard to the performance of public duties by Ministers and agencies associated with the State, what changes in oversight does the Government propose to introduce to ensure these kinds of excesses cannot happen again?

The Ethics in Public Office (Amendment) Bill 2007 went through the Seanad on 4 July 2007 - two years ago - and is still on the Order Paper for the Dáil. As the Taoiseach is aware, its main provision is to increase the value of gifts that Ministers and parliamentarians can receive. Instead of taking the suggestions made by the Standards in Public Office Commission, the Ethics in Public Office (Amendment) Bill 2007, published by the Department of Finance, which was under the stewardship of the Taoiseach at the time, focused entirely on the provision of gifts to Ministers and parliamentary officeholders. The legislation raised the value of gifts which had to be declared to the Standards in Public Office Commission for a declaration that the gift would be unlikely to influence the recipient in the performance of his or her duties from, I understand, €650 to €2,000. Take D

That is a considerable purchase fee for a gift or item for an officeholder or whatever Minister might be involved. In view of the circumstances we now find ourselves in, is it proposed to reduce that limit and have only token gifts or awards made to Ministers?

I am sure some of those on the other side have attics filled with bog deal, glass bowls and mirrors of all descriptions which were awarded to Ministers such as the Minister, Deputy Cullen, when they cut tapes here and there. All I am asking is for the situation to be regularised. I am sure the Minister does not want to do a round of ten different hotels and have a little plaque given to him. He would be far better off going off, saying his piece and saying he does not want anything.

Photo of Martin CullenMartin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Do not be so pathetic.

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

He does not want anything when-----

Photo of Martin CullenMartin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy is trivialising the situation.

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

-----he does his duties. I am trying to help the Minister.

Photo of Brendan HowlinBrendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Please, Minister.

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

The man beside him put through a Bill that raised the limit of gifts that can be given to a Minister from €650 to €2,000. One could go to any gift shop down town and buy a substantial gift for €2,000. The value of such gifts, which might influence a Minister in the performance of his or her duties, must be between €650 and €2,000. What oversight regulations will be changed and put in place and is it proposed to go along with this Bill, which raises the limit from €650 to €2,000? It went through the Seanad two years ago and is still on the Dáil Order Paper. It is in the Taoiseach's interest to clarify this.

Photo of Brian CowenBrian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In regard to the matter the Deputy raised, I understand that Bill has gone through all Stages in the Seanad. As for when it will be debated, it will be a matter for the Whips to make arrangements in due course.

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

It was two years ago.

Photo of Brian CowenBrian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am answering the question. It is a matter for the Whips to deal with.

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

If the Taoiseach wants to debate it he should tell the Chief Whip and he will do it for him.

Photo of Brian CowenBrian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The position is that it is a matter for the Whips and the Minister for Finance as to when it will be taken. Regarding the whole question of thresholds and limits, the threshold of €650 had not been increased since 1995. The idea was to make sure that it would be dealt with in a way that did not involve the commission in the valuation of every gift that would be obtained. On the question of amendments and what people want to do regarding amendments on the size of these gifts, it is a matter which can be debated in the House. It is not an issue which I am holding fast on.

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

The Taoiseach should send out an instruction to his Ministers and Ministers of State to be very careful about what they receive as gifts for duties they perform in respect of their Departments. The Taoiseach is probably aware of one former Minister who had to have the attic in his house strengthened to hold all the gifts which were awarded to him over the years. I am sure he knows the person of whom I am speaking. I am making the point that it is in the interests of all members of the Cabinet and Ministers of State that the situation be regularised, because if the Minister of State, Deputy Cullen, receives a crystal globe for something he does in County Leitrim, what is it worth? He has to declare it.

He should instruct the Minister of State, Deputy Carey, to bring the Bill before the House. He is the Government Chief Whip. I heard him speak eloquently on the radio the other night, when he said his main priority was to get the legislative list right. He gave an eloquent description of what the Government has to do. I suggest the Taoiseach bring this Bill, which was debated in the Seanad two years ago, before the House and let us amend it to a point where no Minister or Minister of State can ever be accused in any circumstances, under the declaration of this Bill, of being put on the spot. I am not suggesting anybody is.

Photo of Brian CowenBrian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Bill does not do that. Legislation is already in place which deals with gifts to Ministers in the performance of their duties. That is covered. This relates to the question of people who, when they are not in the public performance of their duties, receive gifts from friends or associated people. It covers a much wider and different situation than the public performance of duties. The public performance of duties issue is not changed by this Bill. It is important to note that a particular issue arose in regard to that legislation and we have to deal with it.

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

Remember when the daggers were presented.

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

Extravagance and the waste of taxpayers' money is never acceptable. Does the Taoiseach agree that in the current economic climate, where people are losing their jobs and people's incomes are under pressure and they are finding it hard to make ends meet, that the kind of lavish expenditure we have now become aware was going on over a number of years is particularly unacceptable? Would he agree that the era of the €900 hotel room must now be a thing of the past and that it is necessary to convey to the public that that day is over? One way of doing that would be progressing the new ethics Bill which has been lying around for three years? On 10 October 2006 the then Tánaiste, Minister McDowell, told the media that the new ethics Bill was to be brought before the Oireachtas as a matter of urgency. It came before the Seanad but was not brought before this House.

The Taoiseach makes it sound as if the reason it has not come before the House is due to a scheduling difficulty between the Whips. Clearly, a political decision has been taken that this Bill will not be progressed. I have never seen a Bill lying around as long as this one. I agree with Deputy Kenny on the raising of the thresholds, which is something I do not agree with. It would provide an opportunity for the House to address some of these issues in a legislative way and it should be brought before the House as soon as possible.

Photo of Brian CowenBrian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The issue has been dealt with through the Houses of the Oireachtas and has not been proceeded with. When it will be taken is a matter for the Whips and the Minister for Finance. The issue of what thresholds would apply now is matter for decision on Committee Stage. The idea behind it was that there was a gap in the situation regarding people who provide gifts who were friends of an officeholder but did not do so in the context of the performance of duties. This Bill was provided to fill those gaps. That was the idea behind it, as I recall.

On the more general and important point, it is very important that whatever arrangements for officeholders which have been long-standing under successive Administrations be reviewed in the context of the circumstances in which we find ourselves. I do not think anybody in the House would suggest otherwise. The Minister for Finance, in June or July, provided a circular on updated guidelines on travel and what arrangements are put in place. It takes account of how air tickets can be booked at the best possible cost for the taxpayer. These developments took place when guidelines on the old arrangements had not been sufficiently updated. That is being done.

In every aspect of what we do we have to be clear and transparent and I am in favour of transparency, as is the Government. We are anxious to proceed. As the Deputy knows, the commission have had some proposals. The Minister for Finance has a view regarding the verification of what was proposed. I am sure it was proposed in good faith. He has taken a view that there are further considerations to be given to that to improve the verification procedure rather than the composite block grant proposal.

I heard a suggestion this morning that he was in some way blocking this progress. In fact, he is seeking to ensure that we meet the standards the public will expect, in terms of verification of these matters. He is advancing it. While everyone puts forward proposals in good faith, whether it is members of the commission or whatever, it should not then be portrayed as if there is a blocking mechanism on the Government side. The Government side is trying to ensure that we meet the requirements the public would expect in these matters, even beyond what has already been proposed. It is only fair to say that. Let us have that discussion and debate and bring it to a conclusion. We would like to bring it to a conclusion quickly.

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

The Taoiseach is mixing up two areas of expenditure. As I understand it, the recommendations made by the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission to the Minister for Finance relate to the expenses of Members of the House in their capacity as Members of the House. I repeat I am disappointed the Minister has not approved the package that was recommended to him some time ago. As I understand it, the Minister was given the legislative authority to do so in legislation that was passed by the Oireachtas. The expenditure incurred by officeholders - Ministers and Ministers of State - is a separate matter. It is striking that Ministers and Ministers of State are always at the bottom of the league tables of expenses that are published periodically in newspapers, etc. They are at the bottom for the very good reason that their expenses do not go through the Houses of the Oireachtas. Will the Taoiseach agree, in the interests of transparency and so that everybody can see what is going on, to provide that details of the expenses incurred by officeholders and associated with such offices are made available in the same way as the expenses of Members of the Oireachtas are made public?

Photo of Brian CowenBrian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When Deputy Gilmore raised his first matter, he expressed his disappointment at the failure of the Minister for Finance to approve a proposal that had been made. I remind him that the Minister has expressed his views on whether the proposal meets the transparency requirements he considers necessary in this case. The suggestion being made - that the Minister's failure to approve the proposal meant in some way that he was indifferent to this issue, that he was lax on the issue, or that he did not share the high standards being proposed by others in this regard - is not true, not fair, not just and not right.

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

No one has suggested that.

Photo of Brian CowenBrian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We will leave it at that. Although it was suggested that the Minister was blocking an improvement, the truth is that he wanted to advance it beyond what has been suggested. That is the first point. Given that the Minister's position was not being reflected in full, it is only fair to speak in his defence. The second point relates to the question of ministerial expenses. As I have said, mechanisms like the Freedom of Information Acts are being used to provide information. I am prepared to do whatever is necessary to bolster public confidence in that respect. It has been mentioned that when certain figures are provided, it is important to explain the context in which officeholders incur their expenses.

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

True.

Photo of Brian CowenBrian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When figures are provided, it needs to be explained that legitimate or valid expenses are required to do the job.

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

That is fine.

Photo of Brian CowenBrian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If it is done otherwise, the complaint that is made at the moment will be made in reverse. The problem is that all of these matters are sometimes portrayed in a manner that is unfair on everybody. It is important for the public to understand that the moneys spent by those who act on behalf of taxpayers are accounted for in a transparent manner. I am totally in favour of such a system. If people are to know what it is about, it needs to be explained rather than simply thrown out there. As Deputy Gilmore said, people tend to think that those who are paid larger expenses enjoy lavish lifestyles. The reality is that those who do not have similar responsibilities do not incur similar expenses.

Photo of Aengus Ó SnodaighAengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are aware of how public funding was abused by the board of FÁS. For example, some Ministers availed of expensive junkets to Florida. There needs to be a full debate in the Dáil on the issue of ministerial accountability. Will the Taoiseach indicate to the Whips that such a debate will be arranged at some stage? We need to deal with the point the Taoiseach has made about explaining the context in which expenses are paid. Why did three Ministers and two Ministers of State travel to Florida for ceremonies associated with the FÁS science challenge project, which has an annual budget of €1.5 million, over a period of less than three years between 2004 and 2007? Will the Taoiseach admit that the trips were simply junkets? The Cabinet handbook states:

Where the nature of a visit requires that a Minister be accompanied by his/her spouse/partner, he/she should consult the Taoiseach in advance on the matter. Expenses in respect of a spouse/partner will not be charged to public funds in any particular case unless the Taoiseach is satisfied that, in the circumstances, this is warranted.

Is this rule adhered to? Does the Taoiseach routinely sign off on trips by spouses or partners? Can he estimate how many such trips were warranted since 2007? How does he determine whether expenses for spouses or partners are warranted?

Photo of Brendan HowlinBrendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Questions about individuals are more appropriately focused on line Ministers. I remind the House that this issue will be debated during Private Members' time this evening. I ask the Taoiseach to respond on the general issue raised by Deputy Ó Snodaigh.

Photo of Brian CowenBrian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Chair. In the absence of advance notice, I cannot answer specific questions that would be best addressed to individual Ministers. Officeholders can have representational roles in respect of State agencies, in addition to their departmental responsibilities. One may be required to promote the interests of the agencies under one's aegis. It should be acknowledged that the promotion of what such organisations are doing or seeking to do can be a valid exercise of one's responsibilities. I cannot go into the specific details. The Tánaiste undertook to investigate this matter on foot of controversies about travel interests that arose last November. I understand that the programme mentioned by Deputy Ó Snodaigh was discontinued on the advice of the Tánaiste. She insisted that it be discontinued as she did not believe it was sufficiently warranted in the circumstances in which the organisation found itself at that time. That is my recollection of the situation. Spouses can have a representational role from time to time. For example, it is sometimes regarded as appropriate for the accompanying Minister on a presidential visit to be accompanied by his or her spouse. There may be other instances in which it is deemed that the right thing to do, in the circumstances that are arising, is to envisage an itinerary for a ministerial spouse. The guidelines, by definition, require discretion. One cannot be absolutely rigid on this; instead, one makes a decision on the basis of the relevant circumstances. I can only answer the Deputy's question about these arrangements with reference to my experience since I first held this office. Since I took office, I understand there may have been two or three occasions on which that was required.

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

Can I ask the Taoiseach about the incurring of expenses? As an inevitable result of the development of devolved bodies and organisations, which has been a strong feature of public administration in Ireland over the last 20 years, many Ministers now carry out official functions and visits through such bodies and organisations. As semi-State bodies and organisations are not accountable to the Dáil in the same direct way as a Department of State, there is enormous scope for what some people might consider to be the hiding of expenditure. In general, journalists do not become aware of such expenditure unless they use the freedom of information provisions. I suggest, in the interests of restoring public confidence, that officeholders and senior executives in public service Departments, as well as the devolved bodies and semi-State companies, etc., should be required to publish on a quarterly basis a summary of the expenses they have incurred in respect of matters like entertainment and travel. I suspect that the expenses claimed within most bodies are relatively modest. I hope the cases of over-the-top and extravagant expenses are exceptions.

A practice has developed regarding entertainment budgets of people making extensive use of credit cards. Would it not be wise to introduce a daily limit on credit card spending for senior departmental officials, including the private secretaries who administer ministerial travel and entertainment budgets? That would be a practical way of reining in spending and, where a particular entertainment or travel expense is liable to be high, ensuring that thought is given to whether the amount involved is excessive.

Photo of Brian CowenBrian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Department of Finance reviewed the code of practice for the governance of State bodies and issued a revised and updated code on 15 June to include revised guidelines on travel policy for Departments and State bodies which take due account of the recommendations of the Committee of Public Accounts. I understand a further report on FÁS is due to be issued in respect of the internal audits. The conclusions drawn from that report will inform the committee's considerations and the Department of Finance in terms of the lessons to be learned.

Officeholders also have to abide by a code of conduct. Everyone is mindful that taxpayers' money should be spent in the most economic and fair manner possible and that extravagance should be avoided. Strong involvement is sometimes advocated in regard to arrangements but those who have had the privilege of holding office, including Deputy Burton, will be aware that arrangements are put in place for the conduct of work and it is not a question of Ministers seeking to augment itineraries. The itineraries are set out and Ministers do their work in the hope and expectation that everything is in order. Clearly, these traditional arrangements have to be reviewed in light of the context in which we are now operating because we want to maintain the trust and confidence of the people we govern and the taxpayers and electorate we represent.

There is on occasion an inclination to suggest that a particular issue or individual was involved when perhaps it is a matter of reviewing a systemic practice across the board. Too often, debate concerns the person rather than the issue. We need to be mindful of that because it is not in our interest to follow practices which are not consistent with the requirements of the country's current situation or which undermine confidence in the institutions in which we participate. Issues can be validly raised and debated but we need to avoid giving an incorrect or unfair impression. At the same time, the system has to respond in an appropriate and proportionate way to the fact that we are in different circumstances. That needs to be reflected in everything we do. This is not the view of any particular section of this House but is shared by all Deputies.