INSIDE POLITICS:Regardless of ethics legislation, low standards should not be condoned or excused - now or in the past
AN INSIDIOUS notion that has gained some currency as part of the continuing controversy over Bertie Ahern's finances is there were no rules governing the ethical behaviour of politicians until the enactment of ethics legislation in 1995. According to this argument, politicians were perfectly free to line their pockets, in whatever way they thought fit, before the magic year of 1995.
Not only is this theory utterly unfair to the vast majority of politicians, of all parties, before and after 1995 who never dreamed of using their position to enrich themselves, it is simply not true. It also demonstrates a dangerous contempt for the basic notions of ethics in public life.
The fact of the matter is that adherence to appropriate standards in public life has always been expected of politicians in our democracy. It is now over 40 years since the late George Colley, made his famous reference to "low standards in high places", reflecting the widespread unease, within and without Fianna Fáil, about the behaviour of Charles Haughey and the circle that surrounded him.
As far back as the 1940s, a set of cabinet procedure instructions was drawn up to govern the behaviour of ministers and those guidelines continue to apply in the decades since, with regular updates. On the issue of gifts to ministers the instructions state: "There are no formal guidelines on gifts. The practice has been for ministers and ministers of state to accept relatively inexpensive gifts to mark occasions such as official openings etc and not to accept expensive gifts or when presented to return them."
Bertie Ahern maintained in the Dáil in October, 2006, that this requirement only applied to gifts given to ministers by virtue of their office and so did not cover payments to him for his personal use while he was a minister, such as the Manchester whip around. However, that interpretation appears to fly in the face of previous practice and is certainly at odds with the spirit of the rules. An anecdote from political life in the 1950s is a simple illustration. After the General Election of 1951 Erskine Childers, later the president of Ireland, was appointed as minister for posts and telegraphs by the then taoiseach, Éamon de Valera.
Shortly after his appointment to the cabinet, Childers received a cheque from a company in the communications business for whom he had worked while in opposition. The cheque was in payment for work done during that period but Childers was uneasy about accepting it in case it should appear that there was a conflict of interest. He consulted de Valera who told him that he should return the money and that is precisely what he did. If a minister more than 50 years ago understood enough about ethics in government to refuse a payment he was actually due, it is clear that there is long-standing culture in this democracy that did not condone ministers accepting large sums of money. Clearly prominent figures in the Haughey era deviated from traditional norms but that does not mean that most politicians followed suit.
In his incisive report into the Dunnes payments issue in 1977, Mr Justice Brian McCracken set out the position as most people in political life understood it, regardless of the details of ethics legislation.
"It is quite unacceptable that a member of Dáil Éireann, and in particular a cabinet minister and taoiseach, should be supported in his personal lifestyle by gifts made to him personally. It is particularly unacceptable that such gifts should emanate from prominent businessmen within the State. The possibility that political or financial favours should be sought in return for such gifts, or even be given without being sought, is very high and if such gifts are permissible, they would inevitably lead in some cases to bribery and corruption."
The judge's position represents the basic standard of behaviour that should be expected of our politicians now, and in the past. Just because there was a relatively short period of time in which a clique of prominent politicians set aside those standards, does not mean that it was ever widely regarded as acceptable.
Of course, human nature being what it is, there will always be those who transgress, whether by accident or design, in a minor or a major way. The point about having clearly understood standards, though, is that there is a yardstick to judge behaviour by and principles to which all involved should aspire, even if some of them sometimes fall short.
While ethics legislation has a part to play in all of this, it will be rendered meaningless if it is not underpinned by an acceptance and understanding of basic standards. Rules can be avoided and manoeuvred around, as well as being broken, and there are signs that the current ethics legislation is treated in this way by some politicians.
A trawl through the declarations of interest provided by all TDs shows that most of them do appear to make scrupulous attempts to provide all the information about their financial and property interests. However, political gossip indicates that some are adept at disguising their interests and ensuring that political donations are made in such a way that they do not have to be declared.
An unfair aspect of this is that those who make a full declaration open their affairs to public scrutiny while those who practice avoidance can fly under the radar.
The important point is that the political culture should be one that insists on high standards as the expected norm, regardless of the detail of ethics legislation and that low standards should not be condoned or excused - now or in the past.