Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 26 November 2025
153. Deputy Ken O'Flynn asked the Minister for Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation the number of instances in the past five years in which a Minister, Minister of State or senior official was required to recuse themselves from policy development or decision-making due to a declared conflict of interest involving a family member with financial interests in pharmaceutical or healthcare companies. [66573/25]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe Ethics in Public Office Act 1995 sets out the procedures to be followed where an office holder such as a Minister or Minister of State finds that they or a family member have a material interest in a function of their office that falls to be performed.
The 1995 Act stipulates that where an office holder proposes to perform a function of their office in the scenario described in the Deputy’s question, he or she must provide a statement in writing of the facts and the nature of the interest concerned. This statement should be furnished before performance of the function or, if this is not possible, as soon as may be after the performance of the function. The question of recusal from performance of the function does not arise under the legislation.
If the office holder concerned is a Minister or Minister of State, the legislation provides that he or she will furnish any such statement to the Taoiseach and the Standards in Public Office Commission. Where the office holder concerned is the Taoiseach, he or she must furnish any such statement to the Chairman of the Standards in Public Office Commission. Any other office holder will furnish any such statement to the Commission.
Given the explicit reporting lines set out in legislation that I have described above, the Deputy will appreciate that my Department holds no information on any such statements made, and I have no such statement to report on my own account. Senior officials are treated separately under the legislation. If they find themselves in the situation described in the Deputy’s question, the 1995 Act requires that they do not perform the function concerned unless there are compelling reasons to do so and where they propose to perform the function they must furnish before (or if not reasonably practicable as soon as may be after) such performance, a written statement detailing the compelling reasons to the relevant authority, which would, in this case, be the Secretary General of the Department.
Details of any such statements are a matter for the relevant Department or office concerned and my Department does not hold any centralised records in this respect. In the case of my own Department, I am informed that no statements concerning the matters in the Deputy’s question have been made to the Secretary General in the past five years.
