Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Thursday, 19 May 2022

Joint Oireachtas Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach

General Scheme of the Regulation of Lobbying (Amendment) Bill 2022: Discussion

Mr. John Devitt:

We regard a two-year cooling-off period as a minimum. In some cases there should be a complete ban on former officeholders moving into roles that may pose a conflict of interest or may create the public perception of a conflict of interest. We know there have been cases, without mentioning specifics, where former senior officeholders have moved into roles in the corporate sector that undermined public trust and were the subject of great or some controversy. People have long memories and time moves fast. A two-year cooling-off period may not in itself address assuage public concern about conflicts of interest. These measures are introduced with a view to addressing the risk of a conflict of interest while someone holds public office. The promise of an appointment to a lucrative role in the private sector when someone is acting in a public capacity can serve as an incentive to abuse that position.

We have seen this in Ireland but international experience also shows that where members of parliament are promised a lucrative position in a company or role where their future employer has a stake in the decision they are making as public servants, that can and will inevitably pose a conflict of interest and that will do enormous damage to public trust in politics. It is for that reason we suggest that the measures be aimed at addressing potential conflicts of interest depending on the nature of the role the person is in. If someone is in a very sensitive or senior role holding a public office, there may be reason to prevent him or her from moving into a role that may create a public perception of a conflict of interest or undermine public confidence. I would suggest that we look at experience in Canada and elsewhere in this regard. As I said, it is not necessarily a time-sensitive matter. In some cases, by virtue of the office he or she holds and functions he or she performs, an office holder may be required not to move into a position that would undermine public confidence in that office - not in the person, but in that office - if he or she was to assume a role in the private sector.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.