Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I will not go there as a particular Senator in my county would not like to hear anyone talking like that. I think we know what we are talking about. I prefer if Revenue gives it to me anyway.

As I mentioned previously, this proportionate and graduated approach is very important because there are different levels of different aspects of declarable interest that must be declared by different people and it is important to do that. This establishes a new statutory board to address potential conflicts of interest when public officials take up roles in the private sector when merging the Outside Appointments Board for the Civil Service and local authority system. That is an interesting one. We know people should not go to an organisation and use the knowledge they had in the previous organisation. However, my opinion on this topic is probably slightly different from the current fashion. I believe in movement between the public and private sectors. Some people think it is a case of "public sector, good; private sector, bad". We have had lots of cases where people who worked in Revenue are probably now good tax advisers. People might say this is good or bad. I do not know. I think it is an open debate. It is not the closed debate that some people think it is. I have cited one example here previously. I can think of people who probably work in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and when their time comes after a period in the job, they could go on to work for the betterment not just of themselves but that of the company and Irish exports in the food exporting area. The knowledge they have gained in the public service should not be lost to the State but it is a question of how one manages it, particularly during a period of transition. I know some people think people should be almost sterilised, hosed down and put in quarantine for two years after they leave the job. I do not think that is fair either but I accept there can be conflicts and we need a system to deal with conflicts of interest. Sometimes good can result from people moving from job to job.

I will turn to a point that was not addressed in the Bill. The Minister might say it is not exactly the point. One of the briefing notes we received said this ensures that conflicts between the public interest and private interests of public officials in the performance of their duties are regulated. I often ask the question about the conflict of interest between the public interest of one organisation and another public organisation. I know it is not something that is intended here but I think most Government Departments and most people in Government jobs and probably in the private sector as well have a silo mentality. I am not talking about any financial benefit but there can be a conflict of interest between two public bodies because they have a different statutory basis and look at different things differently. There might not be any financial benefit but there could be a financial loss to the State. I raise the point that conflicts of interest can arise between public bodies. I do not think the taxpayer should have to troop off to the courts and fund both sides of a debate while neither side wants to concede. This is an issue that always crops up when we talk about conflicts of interest between public and private interests.

It also talks about a linkage between the quality of public institutions and the long-term economic and social sustainability of the country. This is important. Surprisingly, one of the agencies that has failed in this department over the years is the Central Bank. Public confidence in the Central Bank is very low and rightly so. We all know the Central Bank did not do the job so we will not rehash that. What should be one of the pillar institutions in any country, namely, the Central Bank, suffered a severe loss and the quality of that public institution was severely damaged. This is generally damaging to the public service and everybody connected with it.

In these proposals, we talk about how we manage conflicts and reinforce standards. I like the reference to reinforcing the standards that are already there because it implies that they are there as we stand and that they are not just new requirements. It is also important to have an institutional framework for oversight, investigation and enforcement that is robust and effective. Again, I go back to the Central Bank and other organisations that failed completely in that area in the past and that have a lot of catching up to do to restore public confidence in how they carry out their work. Some people have confidence in how local authorities manage issues. Lots of people have a lower level of confidence in how public authorities do their work. Some people have confidence in the EPA in respect of the quality of its inspection regime and protecting the environment while other people feel that it is a bit too light in how it regulates licences it has issued. This issue comes up periodically in different places. There need not be a conflict of interest for financial gain. It is important that these people are up to the mark in terms of doing their job.

We then talk about how we are going to have a public sector standards commissioner who will have increased powers. The deputy commissioner will be independent of the commissioner in terms of their investigatory function so we will have a commissioner and a deputy commissioner who will be independent in their investigatory functions. I worry about what will happen when you set up one organisation and divide it before you even start and say "you're number two but actually you are independent of number one". We must tease that out because, again, that was one of the problems with the Central Bank. It had a regulatory function and a consumer affairs function. When you set up an organisation and start dividing it in two from day one, it does lead to one side not wanting to know what the other side is doing and we go back to the silo effect about which I spoke earlier.

It is good that public officials will have to disclose as a matter of routine any conflicts of interest they may have. I spoke about how essential it is that people do not use any insider information. Again, we would take that as standard procedure generally in the public area.

I had a look through the explanatory memorandum and a few thoughts came to me about the tax compliance issue and the public sector standards commissioner. We are to have a deputy commissioner. When the deputy commissioner is on leave or sick, retires or leaves the post, is there provision in the legislation for somebody else to carry out the duties of the deputy commissioner if the designated deputy commissioner is not there? This is something to be clarified on Committee Stage. Will it take six to 12 months to fill a post and will the entire organisation be effectively stood down if they cannot work during that period? I do not have to look too far to see where there was a gap previously in respect of appointing somebody to do a particular job. Could the Minister pick up on that?

Section 30 provides for the commissioner to draw up and issue a model code of conduct to guide public officials. This code of conduct is a guide and there are guidelines. I know one cannot be over-prescriptive from day one but it is important that they be very consistent across the different public bodies. Different public bodies will probably be given a template and told to amend it. I hope the commissioner will review the implementation of these guidelines to make sure they are carried out in an objective and consistent manner. It is no good being told "this office only has a policy function". I get tired of hearing this. This means that we will dream up the idea and if it does not work, nobody implements it and everybody ignores it, it is not our fault. This is the Bart Simpson response that one often gets in the public and private sectors so it is important that somebody actually does monitor it, training and manuals are introduced, staff are brought in and shown how to work it and yearly meetings take place in respect of its operation.

Interestingly, the commissioner will be able to make their own inquiries regardless of whether or not an objection has been received from a member of the public. There will be a procedure for an oral hearing, which is set out in section 40. This is important because sometimes an oral hearing can achieve far more than all the written submissions people care to deal with. As Deputies, we know that sometimes when there is a hearing involving an appeals officer from the Department of Social Protection and the person who may have been refused a payment, one can achieve more in that half hour and the person sees the people who are directly involved. It is a bit like being in front of a judge. They get a feel for the person with whom they are dealing.

I will now turn to sections 42, 43 and 44. Section 44 talks about how the commissioner will have powers relating to discovery of documents. I want to ask a question that needs to be addressed.

The issue of confidentiality of documents arose in respect of the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation, IBRC, inquiry where the receiver, paid for by the taxpayer, doing his job as he saw fit did not pass information to another taxpayer-funded organisation which ran the inquiry and the judge put his hands up and said he had a problem. He asked for somebody to act as referee and give him the powers to do what everyone knew he needed to do. That is an acid test if somebody cites confidentiality in respect of documents. Will the deputy commissioner have the power to go any further? Where will he or she go in that situation? Will he or she go to the High Court? That needs to be clarified at the beginning because there is no point having legislation if when some people have a problem with an investigation, they claim confidentiality and scupper the whole procedure.

There will be powers of suspension if a Member of the Oireachtas contravenes this legislation. This is a new area and will probably require constitutional clarification on Committee Stage to ensure it is safe. Notwithstanding that a report will have been done and laid before the Dáil, there would have to be a mechanism in the Dáil if a Member is to be suspended. It cannot be that the report is lodged in the Oireachtas Library and there is a vote to suspend the Member. The Member is entitled to state his or her case in front of his or her peers. The commissioner may not be right in every adjudication. Will there be a second, parallel inquiry in the House, as was talked about years ago in the Judge Curtin issue? I do not know if that was before my time here.

See this speech in context