Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I am fully in support of Deputy O'Callaghan's amendments. Just because something is standard practice does not mean it is good practice. Often, the people leading State agencies can build up considerable expertise and knowledge that might not necessarily be shared in Departments or by their respective Ministers. Therefore, legally preventing them in any circumstance from expressing a contrary personal view based on their experience is limiting the Government from achieving its objectives. I will take as an example the outgoing chair of the Housing Agency, Mr. John O'Connor. In the previous Dáil, this committee would have benefited more if Mr. O'Connor, a man of immense experience and knowledge, had a little more freedom when necessary to give a personal view, that would have added to the public discourse and evidence base. Experienced public officials, particularly as they are approaching the end of their careers, for example, as the head of the County and City Management Association, CCMA, or another agency, will sometimes test the limits of that legal gagging order, as Deputy O'Callaghan rightly called it, and we benefit from that. We need the greatest level of expertise, evidence and experience. Therefore, these are sensible amendments.

Regarding the Accounting Officer issue, the Minister of State did not explain why. He just stated that it was the practice. We all know it is the practice that the chief executives of State agencies do not appear before Oireachtas committees as Accounting Officers, but why not? Why do we not require the same level of transparency in the use of public moneys or, as in this case, public lands when the chief executive of an agency - in this case, the huge agency that the Government wants to create - appears before an Oireachtas committee that applies to Secretaries General? Why is that the case other than it being the practice, which is not a satisfactory answer?