Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Thursday, 28 November 2019

Public Accounts Committee

Business of Committee

9:00 am

Photo of Seán FlemingSeán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

We will clarify that with SUSI.

Correspondence No. 2571 B is from Mr. Maurice Buckley, chairman of the Office of Public Works, providing a further update requested by the committee on discussions between the OPW and the landlord of Miesian Plaza. There was a meeting in October and the OPW is following up some matters. I propose we request a further update of matters not yet concluded. We will note and publish this.

Correspondence No. 2575 B and No. 2578 B are from Mr. Peter Finnegan, Secretary General of Houses of the Oireachtas Service. We will hold these until we come to dealing with No. 2581, which is the letter we received this morning. We will note and publish them.

Correspondence No. 2579B is from Mr. Colum Walsh, deputy commissioner at the Data Protection Commission, providing the commission's view on the Department of Finance and other public bodies providing details of fees paid to barristers. This is a very comprehensive and useful response to the matter raised and it appears that the Data Protection Commission shares the committee's view that the need to provide transparency overrides privacy concerns about fees paid to individual barristers. I want to refer to this letter because it is a very important issue. I acknowledge this arises from issues raised by the Vice Chairman, Deputy Alan Kelly, who raised this matter through parliamentary questions and brought it to the committee, resulting in the committee making a recommendation in our interim report last week. For the benefit of the public, and especially for the Department of Finance and the Minister for Finance whose view we received in the last letter on this, Mr. Walsh's letter states the practice of disclosing the names of barristers along with fees paid to them by Government Departments and public bodies is long standing.

Such disclosures have arisen, for example, under the Freedom of Information Act and parliamentary questions. The voluntary disclosure of certain payments is part of the public service reform plan. The commission is stating that it is not clear what precipitated the apparent recent change in practice on the part of certain Government bodies and that it is not required under GDPR rules specifically. The letter goes on to mention that there is a legitimate interest to be transparent and accountable financially as a public body funded by the Exchequer. It said that when the commission is processing information, it must be conscious of the processing of the data subject, namely, the individual concerned, where such processing would represent a disproportionate interference with the subject's rights. The letter goes on to talk about how the commission believes the balance is in favour of public disclosure and accountability. The letter then states that the commission noted that during the course of its deliberations, the Committee of Public Accounts suggested that a recommendation be made to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform that tenderers for publicly-funded contracts should be told that their fees and costs will be disclosed as part of the process and that the commission supports that recommendation. It is very clear that people should be informed of it at the very beginning of the process. That should deal with the issue. The letters says the commission supports our view on the matter. The matter is not yet closed. I think we will send this letter to the Department of Finance and ask it to study it and respond accordingly. Deputies MacSharry and Cullinane have indicated they wish to speak.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.