Ms Emily O'Reilly:

There were two particular cases we dealt with and we found maladministration in both. Subsequently, both the European Banking Authority and the European Defence Agency said they would tighten the rules on revolving doors and allowing people to go the private sector. They were quite egregious cases. The European Banking Authority was set up after the financial crisis to help restore faith in financial regulation. In Ireland, we know all about what poor financial regulation did and what was inflicted. The then head of the European Banking Authority was allowed leave and become a senior member of one of the biggest banking and financial lobbying firms in Europe. We said explicitly that if there was one job that should have been forbidden by the banking agency, it should have been that one. I do not have to explain to the Cathaoirleach why that was clearly a conflict of interest, but governments had to do so much after the financial crisis to build up trust in them and in the financial system again. Then something like that happens in an agency created partly to restore citizens' trust. We can see why that is problematic. In the European Defence Agency case, its former head was allowed go to Airbus, which is one of the agency's biggest contractors. Again, one can see why that was problematic. I am not sure whether the European administration sees why this is a problem. I am not talking specifically about these two cases, but it is a form of insider trading.

The people who are most valuable to the private sector are not really the Commissioners and the higher-ups. They are good for branding, but the people who are really important to the private sector are the ones who do the intricate, hard work of drawing up the regulations and so on. They know everything that needs to be done to shape or amend regulations and so on. Often, it is the mid-level managers, such as heads of unit and so on, who are attracted to big consultancies, lobbying firms and so on. Members can google "Ten biggest consultancies in Brussels" and scroll through the results. Inevitably, they will see consultancies literally bragging about who they have. They will say they have former heads of unit from the Directorate General for competition, Directorate General for trade, or whatever. They will say they have a certain number of former enforcement officials. What is that about? They are saying they have all the knowledge those former officials have that can be used to help the customer shape future regulation in the way he or she wishes. I was talking recently about this precise issue to the head of one part of the European administration. This person had formerly worked in a law firm and they mentioned the time the firm took on a middle-ranking but very influential person in a particular department. The person said the firm had a cocktail party because everyone was so delighted. Sometimes I feel it is like a parallel universe. On the one hand the Commission is saying everything is okay, this is managed, it says there are rules and it has told former officials they cannot do this, while on the other hand the consultancies are throwing cocktail parties because they know they have something very valuable indeed. That is why this is problematic.