State Papers: Ahern and Andrews opposed 1993 bill on standards and transparency
(Left to right) David Andrews and Bertie Ahern. Mr Andrews – claimed the legislation was 'very extreme and quite unwarranted'. File photo: RollingNews.ie
Former taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, was among the strongest opponents within the Fianna Fáil-Labour coalition government against the proposed introduction of the Ethics in Public Office Act with a number of specific objections including against the requirement for office holders to declare the interests of their spouses and children.
Newly released files by the National Archives show Mr Ahern, as minister for finance in November 1993, objected to various elements of the draft legislation being championed by the tánaiste and minister for foreign affairs, Dick Spring, which was designed to provide greater public transparency about politicians.
They also reveal that another senior Fianna Fáil member of the Government — the minister for defence and the marine, David Andrews — claimed the legislation was “very extreme and quite unwarranted.”
The introduction of the legislation was proposed by the Labour leader as a measure to address public concern over ministerial conduct after a number of controversies including the Beef Tribunal.
The Ethics in Public Office Bill was designed to establish a framework for transparency in public life, requiring office holders — including TDs, senators and senior public servants — to disclose financial interests and gifts as well as follow procedures for the appointment of special advisers.
HISTORY HUB
If you are interested in this article then no doubt you will enjoy exploring the various history collections and content in our history hub. Check it out HERE and happy reading
It also provided for the establishment of the Standards in Public Office Commission and a register of interests of members of the Houses of the Oireachtas.
A memorandum prepared for the Government by Mr Spring in November 1993 reveals that Mr Ahern objected to the creation of SIPO as well as an Oireachtas Select Committee on Members’ Interests in addition to his opposition about declaring the interests of spouses and children as well as provisions relating to the directors of State bodies.
The Department of Foreign Affairs recorded that Mr Ahern’s objections to the establishment of SIPO appeared to be based largely on concern that its activities would adversely impact the abilities of ministers and State bodies from discharging their responsibilities in relation to discipline and conduct in the public sector.
It noted that Mr Ahern was arguing that the involvement of the commission in such matters would be counterproductive as it would “dissipate responsibility". Mr Ahern had suggested that it would be preferable for the responsibility of enforcing the Ethics in Public Office Act to be left to ministers and State bodies.
The Tánaiste acknowledged the finance minister’s objections about declaring the interests of spouses and children but said if such a minimal requirement was removed, it would be seen by the public as allowing “a mechanism whereby office holders could avoid declaring certain interests by the simple expedient of transferring assets etc. into the name of a spouse”.
Mr Spring stated he understood the concerns expressed by Mr Ahern given the novel nature of the proposed commission. However, the Tánaiste said he regarded the commission as “an essential element” of the legislation for a number of reasons.
Mr Spring continued: “Firstly, it is a concrete expression of the need to have in place a recognisably independent and powerful, monitoring and enforcement agency.”
He predicted that the existence of such a commission would also help win public support and confidence in the bill.
The Tánaiste reminded Mr Ahern that it was proposed that the secretary of the Department of Finance would have a presence on the commission which he could not in any way envisage “making any inappropriate intervention".
Mr Spring said it was very unlikely SIPO would intervene in a matter affecting a State body if that organisation was willing and able to take appropriate action itself.
However, he had proposed changes to the legislation that would oblige the commission to hold a detailed consultation process with the Minister for Finance and the relevant authority before undertaking any investigation on its own initiative.
The Tánaiste said the commission would act as an important resource for ministers and State bodies if they needed an independent investigation.
Despite Mr Ahern’s objections, however, Mr Spring said it was essential that declarations by directors of State bodies should be copied to the commission.
The files show that Mr Andrews also argued against the requirement for the disclosure of the interests of spouses or connected persons on constitutional and other grounds.
He also suggested that any register of interests of TDs and senators should be kept confidential “at least for the life of the present Dáil.” Mr Andrews claimed the question of a public register needed to be considered “in the light of experience.”
While Mr Spring again acknowledged the points made by his cabinet colleague about privacy, he stressed that the disclosure required was the minimum needed to meet the objectives of the legislation.
He pointed out that the possible impact on privacy was being “kept to a minimum”. Mr Spring said he believed omitting the requirement relating to spouses and children would severely damage the credibility of the legislation and “could not be countenanced.”
He also expressed regret that he could not accept any of the other points raised by Mr Andrews.
The memo noted that the legislation was supported by fellow Labour members in Cabinet — the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Mervyn Taylor and the Minister for Health, Brendan Howlin.
The Attorney General, Harry Whelehan, expressed reservations about whether it was constitutionally permissible that the legislation would allow a member of either the Dáil or Seanad to be suspended without pay.
However, the memo showed that Mr Spring decided to retain the relevant section, while noting that the AG had accepted that the matter was “not free from doubt”'
The AG also challenged what he claimed was the “wide discretion” that the proposed legislation would give to the Minister for Finance to designate the directorships and positions of employment to which the Act would apply.
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
