John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)

The Bill represents a considerable step forward in consolidating the legislation which was put in place previously. I was a member of the sub-committee established by the Committee on Finance and the Public Service which considered the so-called "blue book" and formulated recommendations for the original ethics legislation. It is a complex area. While we all know what we would like to achieve, to formulate wording and effect legislation is very difficult. One is either ethical or not in one's outlook. One of the problems I have with the legislation, not of itself but with regard to the people who are governed by it, is that I am not sure it will make those who wish to be evasive or who are guilty of misconduct compliant and correct. Unfortunately, the people who are compliant and who do their best to submit their returns in a proper, timely and accurate manner are the people who sometimes find themselves in difficulty as a result of questions that are then raised by the Standards in Public Office Commission. There is a mismatch there but how it can be addressed is a different matter.

The threshold of €2,000 is perfectly reasonable and appropriate. The Minister made the point that we live in a different time so the increase from €650 to €2,000 is reasonable. I have lifelong friends and last year I visited them in their villa in Spain. I stayed there for several days and we dined out a number of times. Frequently they paid for the meal. Travelling home on the aeroplane it occurred to me to wonder if I should have to declare the visit. It is entirely unreasonable that one should. These are people I have known all my life. I will bring them out when they return here, and probably return the compliment. There must be some degree of balance and proportion.

Consider also events such as the Ryder Cup or a rugby international and the situation where people are offered tickets. These events, particularly in the corporate sector, have become extremely expensive days out. Again, one might query the propriety of accepting such tickets. However, if one has been going to Lansdowne Road for the past 45 years for each match, as I have, and, on the way out of a function before a game, somebody offers one a ticket, what is one to do? I am aware that something that is given on the spur of the moment is covered, but it can reach a point where the system gets so silly as to be wrong.

Senator Finucane made a point about the requirements that might be imposed on auctioneers and people at county council level. The important issue is that one is aware of the vested interest and that it is declared. The interest should be declared and if one is prudent, one will probably not intervene in the debate and, if one is even more prudent, one will not vote on the matter. Again, however, I am not sure whether we are going overboard in terms of the minutiae or the degree to which we ask people to be conscious of their obligations under law. That is not to say that ethics are not required.

Senator Norris spoke about the definition of ethics. Enough volumes have been written over enough generations to make it problematic as to how one would define ethics. There are enough textbooks on the matter in the universities to occupy academics for many years. However, if something walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. We know it when we see it and we should know what ethics are.

I have always considered the nil return to the clerk silly. One had to make a nil return to the clerk and if one was making a different return, it went to the standards office. That did not add up.

There is one large defect in the reporting requirements. Quite legitimately, we must report investments, property, farm land and so forth. However, one could have €10 million in cash deposited in the bank or elsewhere and one is not required to report it. If people intend to get up to mischief, it is more likely to happen with cash. I do not know how one overcomes that problem. If somebody has a large amount of cash on deposit, they should not be required to declare how much cash they have, just as one is not required to declare how much one has in investments, but simply that they are over a certain level. It is reasonable that people should be required to declare that. Perhaps it might be considered in future legislation.

This legislation represents an improvement, although not a major step forward. Some of the major steps were taken in the past and this measure adds to that legislation. Such legislation was absent at one time, which was wrong.

I know from reading Roy Jenkins's life of Gladstone that when Gladstone was Prime Minister, he accepted an invitation from somebody whose name I cannot recall to go on his yacht to the south of France and stay at his villa for approximately two months during a recess. I doubt he had to pay for a bottle of wine or a meal. It was all regarded as perfectly acceptable by the standards of the time. It would be perfectly unacceptable by today's standards and I understand why this is the case. However, a question of proportion is raised and I will return to the point that if people want to misbehave, they will do so in spite of legislation. Sometimes, the main onus falls on the people who are most compliant and most anxious to fulfil their obligations under legislation and a balance must be struck.