Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 28 May 2026
6. Deputy Cian O'Callaghan asked the Minister for Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation if he will provide an update on reform of the ethics in public office legislation, given that the review of the statutory framework was completed in December 2022; the reason for the delay in publishing the heads of a Bill; if he expects this Bill to be introduced this year; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40505/26]
View answerAs the Minister knows, the ethics in public office legislation is very important in terms of public confidence in officeholders and public bodies. The review of the statutory framework was completed in 2022, almost four years ago. The heads of Bill should have followed quickly after that, yet here we are, in the middle of 2026, and there are no heads of Bill. What is causing the delay? When are we going to see the heads of Bill? We were promised two years ago by the then Minister, Paschal Donohoe, that it was almost ready.
The programme for Government commits to updating the ethics in public office legislation. I assure the Deputy that this remains a priority. I have updated Government colleagues this week with a memorandum for information on the progress that is being made. However, as the Deputy is aware, this is a complex area and careful consideration is required across a range of issues before detailed proposals are progressed.
I want to advance the programme for Government commitment, which represents an opportunity to make real and meaningful long-term change and reform to our current system. I am determined that this should happen in a way that is coherent from a policy perspective, but also streamlined from an operational perspective. As the Deputy mentions, my Department has already prepared the ground through a comprehensive review of the legislative framework for ethics. Very broadly, this found that the legislative framework for ethics should be underpinned by a set of integrity principles; that disclosure requirements should be strengthened to improve transparency; that consideration should be given to whether the regime should encompass more officeholders; and that the Standards in Public Office Commission should be strengthened. A variety of significant operational and policy considerations flow from this review and its recommendations.
I brought a memorandum to Government this week, and my officials will undertake further engagement with affected end-users of the system. This includes, at the outset, both Committees on Members’ Interests. The purpose of this exercise is to gain insight into the practicalities of how the ethics system works. This outreach is a limited, targeted exercise. It is not a re-opening of the broader consultation process, which is now complete. My officials are seeking to understand how the processes and procedures of making ethics returns could potentially be streamlined and modernised. I want to ensure that those procedures, under a reformed regime and new legislation, are efficient, user-friendly and future-proofed. Following this, I hope to conclude the process around the drafting of the general scheme, which will then progress in the context of the programme for Government commitment.
With respect, the Minister has talked a lot about the need to speed up the delivery of critical infrastructure, which I support. Yet here he is, giving an answer about how he is slowing down this process. The statutory review was completed almost four years ago, and the heads of Bill were promised by the Minister’s predecessor, Paschal Donohoe, as almost ready in May two years ago.
These processes were substantially concluded four years ago but now the Minister is saying that we need to do more. Meanwhile, the Government is setting up more public bodies year after year and the number of such bodies that escape the SIPO requirements under legislation grows year after year. We now have 49 public bodies not covered by SIPO because of the inaction of the Minister and his predecessors. It is growing year by year and that is not acceptable. Every year SIPO publishes a report saying that it needs stronger powers. The substantive work on this was completed four years ago. When are we actually going to see the heads of a Bill? When is this going to come into force or is the Minister just going to slow this down and delay it further? That is what is happening now.
The purpose of bringing a memorandum to Government was to update colleagues on the progress being made around the policy context here. What we are seeking to do, rather than just adding additional legislative provisions, which obviously will be advanced through a general scheme, is to ensure that we digitalise and simplify the process of making a return and that has to be future proofed around particular legislation. It will make it a much better and more transparent system. What we are seeking to do in the context of ensuring we have a positive and strengthened general scheme is to do a direct engagement with all parties and members through the Committees on Member' Interests on the current end user interface and reflect that in a general scheme. That will help the progression of the work. My plan then would be to bring the general scheme to Government, having concluded that exercise, and then progress the legislation. It is not a reopening of the consultation process, to be clear. It is simply to ensure the legislative provisions reflect a streamlined and modernised system that actually makes it easier for people to use. We have a predominantly paper-based system today which can be improved when people are making submissions and returns.
When the Minister issued a press release on it this week, I was genuinely delighted. I thought this was finally coming to fruition and completion but then I read the press release and saw that was not the case. The rationale the Minister is giving is that we are going to move from a paper-based system to an online system, which is absolutely correct but at the same time, we are not able to get on with what was completed four years ago. We are in 2026 now. How does it take so long to develop a digitised system? Meanwhile, year after year, more and more public bodies escape the provisions of the ethics legislation. Is the Minister not really concerned that we now have 49 public bodies not covered by the ethics legislation? Under his watch this is getting worse, as year after year more and more public bodies are set up but are not named as being covered. This is urgent. Surely the Minister agrees this is urgent. Every single public body should be covered by the ethics legislation. Surely there should be no more delays in that. If the Minister is not able to get his act together on the digitisation, he could always come back to it later and get it done through additional legislation.
It is important to ensure we future proof the legislative provisions or a general scheme. Even in the past year or two there has been a change of context. If we look back at the experience with the 2015 public sector standards Bill, it did not progress and it lapsed. It is important to ensure that any legislation or scheme we introduce is progressed and enacted. There is no reopening of it, to be clear. What we are trying to do is ensure that we draft the scheme in the context of future proofing it. It should be simplified and strengthened in terms of a digital interface. That has to be underpinned through a legislative context. We are getting direct feedback from members who make the current submissions on how that will be strengthened. In the aftermath of that, my plan is to conclude the work on a general scheme and progress it. I want to ensure we enact a Bill. The last time we actually had a Bill progressing was the 2015 Bill, which was not enacted. It was criticised for being overly complex and difficult to comprehend during debates in the Oireachtas. I want to ensure we have a system that is reformed and can work for those who are making submissions.
