Shane Ross (Independent)

I second the amendment. I congratulate the Green Party Members on tabling this motion and look forward to seeing the legislation in due course. I would have been more confident that this would be followed by action had they been able to vote in this House for their own legislation on appointments to semi-State bodies. I am delighted to see the numbers of Green Party Senators in the House outnumber its coalition partners by three votes, which is probably indicative of the degree of enthusiasm there is for this motion among the coalition partners. Having said that, it is particularly useful to debate the motion at this time. I am doubtful about certain aspects, although I approve totally of its thrust. However, we would want to be careful about laying down a time limit of one year, although I know it is standard overseas. While the principle is right, to say somebody should be one year out of his or her job in the Civil Service before he or she could accept a possibly conflicting job in the private sector is a little odd.

The reason we have this problem is not the power people have, as Senator Dearey said, but the knowledge they possess. The problem is, however, that if someone from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation or the Department of Finance, mentioned by Senator O'Toole, leaves with knowledge which is coveted by the private sector for very good reasons and which is covered by the Official Secrets Act, it will not depart from him or her after one year. If it is sensitive, as it can be at certain times, and about particular contracts or competitors, the person concerned will still possess that knowledge one year later. I suspect it is more an issue of concept than time. It would be very difficult to legislate for this as it is a matter of mens rea. We are saying people who leave the Civil Service should not be placed in a situation where they would be conflicted. However, they would be so conflicted perhaps five or ten years later because the way things work in business and the Civil Service is sometimes particularly slow and the knowledge would travel with them.

We need to think very carefully about imposing a one year limit. It may be okay immediately; it often can be, but the situation could last for a very long time. When the legislation is being drafted, somebody will have to be particularly clever and place the onus on the individual concerned which is where it is in corporate matters not to put himself or herself in a situation where he or she will be conflicted or not to act or behave in a way in which he or she will be conflicted. What will happen is that after 365 days a person will be able to say he or she is conflicted but that it does not matter. That is absurd. While I approve of the principle, there is a problem which should be highlighted.

Senators O'Toole and Boyle mentioned that for several reasons it should apply to officeholders and persons who were Members of the Dáil and Seanad. They are sometimes privy to information because of the positions they hold and are coveted, sought and recruited by the private sector because they possess that information and knowledge. It is not only because they know the workings of the Houses and the Civil Service, but also because they know a lot about an industry which may give them the inside track. There is no doubt about this - that is how private industry works. It is not a very moral business. No private employer will say he or she had better not hire somebody because he or she might be conflicted. The reality is that he or she will say he or she had better hire somebody because he or she is conflicted and might know something. What will we do about this? We have to address that issue in a rigorous way. We will have to be as hard on ourselves as on the Civil Service.

The motion does not specifically mention lobbyists, but is suspect this is an area on which we must zoom in and target. Many people currently working in the Civil Service will become consultants. "Consultant" is often a euphemism for lobbyist. We see lobbyists around Leinster House. One of the problems with them is not for how long they have been away, but that half of the time one does not know whether they have been away because they are still here and lobbying. I can name them; people know who they are, as they see them around Leinster House. Even though they are no longer Members and are perhaps less than one year out of the Houses, they have access to Leinster House and are subtly lobbying. That may or may not be good, but they should be identified. When the legislation is being drafted, we should guarantee there is a register of lobbyists in order that we will know when we talk to people for whom they are speaking and why there are here. That is a minimalist demand which we should include in the legislation. I ask the Green Party which is, after all, influential to use its influence to ensure that happens.

The Department of Finance was mentioned; Senator O'Toole was absolutely right in that regard. There does not have to be a link between the amendment and the motion. There are several cases where the amendment proposes to delete all words after the word "That". Senator O'Toole's speciality is proposing the removal of all words after "That". Let us not worry too much about the link. It may not be a direct one, but it covers a similar subject.

The Department of Finance is a very interesting case in point. What is stated in the amendment is absolutely fascinating. When Mr. Cardiff appeared before a committee of the Houses, he said - it does not suit my ideological bent, but it must be taken up-front - the Department of Finance did not have the expertise to do such and such. That is very worrying and something up to which we must face. We must ask if certain people are not being paid enough. That does not in any way negate the need for civil and public servants to take pay cuts. If, however, the Department of Finance cannot afford to pay people, in particular, in specialist areas, we must accept we have a difficulty and tackle it. We must recruit people in certain areas and pay them or else find another way out.

The Department of Finance found another way out many years ago in the case of the National Treasury Management Agency. Instead of the Department managing the pension fund, it moved it to the private sector. I am not certain that was the ideal way to do it because there was great resentment among people in the Department when that happened because they believed they were perfectly able to do the NTMA's job, without Mr. Michael Somers being paid €1 million a year. They may well have been right. Why did the Department not keep Mr. Somers and pay him half of what he was being paid in the NTMA because he would have had the same expertise in one place as in the other? I am only highlighting the problem we face; I do not have the solution to it, but it is an extraordinarily difficult problem.

If the Department of Finance which is, after all, the most powerful Department in the State states in the middle of a banking crisis that it does not have the necessary expertise to deal with banking issues and does not have an economist, we must face up to the fact that it might be part of the problem we faced and which culminated in what happened in 2008. There has been huge controversy about this recently and I am surprised it does not have more legs. Why was there not more of a warning from the Department throughout 2008? Was it because the guys were asleep on the job, they were insiders or there was not the required expertise in the Department? That is why Senator O'Toole's amendment is so relevant. If the Department of Finance cannot get the people needed in the most powerful and sensitive areas which have brought us to rack and ruin, we have a question to answer. During the crisis we were let down badly by the mandarins in Merrion Street. I do not know whether it was because of a lack of expertise, they were asleep on the job or they were insiders. I suspect it was a bit of everything. We cannot allow a situation where people in such pivotal positions do not have the knowledge to make qualified decisions or give the right advice to the Minister.