WHEN he came to office the Taoiseach, John Bruton, promised to run his Government as if it were behind a pane of glass. Openness, transparency and accountability, we were told, would be the hallmarks of the Government's term of office.

These are the standards the Government set for themselves. And we are entitled to judge them by those self-imposed standards. They were not prompted by any "holier than thou" initiative from the Opposition benches.

The Taoiseach told us in October 1995 that he had sought a declaration of financial interests from Ministers on a scale that was never asked for before by any of his predecessors.

But for that declaration to have been worthwhile, surely public disclosure of the details would have been the least we could have expected?

Former Minister Michael Lowry disclosed to the Dail last month that he had availed of the 1993 tax amnesty and had made this known to the Taoiseach when he assumed office as part of the declaration of his interests.

Mr Lowry also explained to the Dail that, notwithstanding the fact that he had availed of the amnesty, his tax affairs were still not in order. Having been made aware that his Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications had availed of the 1993 tax amnesty, what effort did the Taoiseach make back in 1995 to ensure that Mr Lowry had put his tax affairs in order?

Following Mr Lowry's revelations, I decided to ask the Taoiseach if other Ministers had availed of the 1993 tax amnesty. My reasons for asking the question were simple.

It is legitimate for the public to know whether or not Ministers who participated in the approval of the tax amnesty bestowed benefits on themselves and their families.

Some of the ministers who sat at the cabinet table in 1993 remain Ministers now.

After all, local authority members are required by law to declare their interests when they are elected. They must reveal what property they, or their spouse, own or haven an interest in within the administrative area of the council. They must reveal any business interests.

They must not vote or take part in any discussions about planning applications relating to land or property that is owned by them. They must also have no outstanding debts to the council.

Surely it is reasonable to expect that all office-holders should have their tax affairs in order when they assume office? After all, no company can secure a government contract unless they produce a tax clearance certificate. The same rule applies to publicans if they wish to retain their licence to trade.

The argument is made that because the amnesty was law, anyone who availed of it was doing nothing untoward.

Yet when it came to the disclosures in the Labour-inspired Ethics in Office Bill, all deputies had to reveal their financial interests, including shares, property and gifts they received over a certain value.

The aim of the Ethics in Office legislation was not to prevent TDs from having such financial interests; it was to secure public disclosure where privacy had obtained before. It was, we were told, also to ensure that no conflict of interest, or impropriety, could arise.

If the Taoiseach is serious in his commitment to the concept of full disclosure, surely he can have no problem telling us in the Dail this afternoon if any of his Ministers availed of the amnesty, and if they did, whether or not their tax affairs are now in order. Are we really to accept that if Mr Lowry hadn't told the Dail he had availed of the amnesty, the public would never have known about it?

On the Opposition benches in 1993, the Progressive Democrats, Fine Gael and Democratic Left vehemently proposed the introduction of the tax amnesty - one of the greatest-ever insults delivered to the ordinary people of Ireland.

The then government's message to the PAYE worker was clear: while we keep inflicting severe pain on your pay-slips, we are going to allow individuals who owe this country millions of pounds away with paying a fraction of their outstanding tax.

In fact, the failure to address the tax burden on ordinary workers is all the more reprehensible when one considers the "kid gloves" treatment afforded to tax evaders.

I have been variously accused of "mischief-making" and of "hatching a plot" in tabling these questions. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Irish politics has been battered and bruised by the Lowry affair. Never before have we seen such public cynicism about politicians. There is an onus on all of us to restore pride to the profession.

The best way to achieve that is to be more accountable, and to be open and forthright with the people who elect us. The vast majority have nothing to hide. But if we allow the foibles of a few to dictate the pace of events we are merely following the crowd, and not, as we should be doing, leading by example.

If the contract cleaner in Government Buildings is required to have a tax clearance certificate, is it too much to expect that the Cabinet members whose offices they clean should have one, too?