James Reilly (Dublin North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 31: To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance if he plans to amend the legislation governing the Standards in Public Office Act 2001 in order that it can initiate its own investigations of matters which may breach proper behaviour by persons in its area of responsibility. [7833/08]

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 36: To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance if the Government is planning amendments to the Ethics in Public Office Acts; if he will agree to the substantive amendments sought by SIPO; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7728/08]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 31 and 36 together.

As I have informed the House on previous occasions, the Standards in Public Office Act 2001 already allows the Standards in Public Office Commission to carry out investigations on its own initiative, where it considers it appropriate to do so, on breaches of the provisions of the Ethics legislation, by persons in the Commission's area of responsibility, and as provided for by the legislation.

The Deputies will, of course, be aware that issues concerning a non-office-holding member of the Oireachtas would, in the first instance, be a matter for the Select Committee on Member's Interests of the relevant House.

As regards the other changes to the Ethics legislation recommended by the Standards Commission in its last Annual Report, I do not propose to amend the definition of the term "specified act" used in the legislation, or to legislate for a complaint concerning failure to abide by certain defined ethical standards. The existing definition of "specified act" aims to strike a fair balance, and there are already Codes of Conduct to guide the ethical behaviour of Oireachtas members, office-holders and civil servants in their day-to-day business and these codes can be taken into account by the Standards Commission in an investigation of an alleged breach of the legislation.

As regards inquiry officers, again I have informed the House previously that I have no plans to amend the law to enable the Standards Commission to appoint an inquiry officer without having received a complaint. It is reasonable that a complaint to the Standards Commission should be required to commence the inquiry process, which, in itself, can carry serious consequences for the person who is to be the subject of it. Numerous categories of persons, including members of the public and any public representative, are entitled to make a complaint against the persons and office holders against whom complaints can be made to the Commission.

The other Standards Commission amendments are technical. One of them — about the furnishing of "nil" statements — is already provided for in the Ethics in Public Office (Amendment) Bill 2007. Another concerns statutory declarations of tax compliance under the Standards in Public Office Act 2001, and relates to extending the period within which proceedings can be taken in relation to false or misleading declarations. Section 34 of the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2006, about to be taken at Report Stage in this House, would extend that period in relation to statutory declarations generally, including those required under the Standards in Public Office Act 2001.

I aim to circulate amendments to cater for the remainder of the Standards Commission's recommendations in advance of the Committee Stage debate on the Bill when it is being taken in the House. My intention, assuming agreement among the Whips, is that the Bill should be taken in the current session.