Sean Barrett (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 12, line 6, after “relevant” to insert “published”.

The subsection refers to "relevant scientific or technical advice". It is under the heading to the section which states, "Matters of which account is to be taken, and consultation, for the purposes ofsections5and 6." It is a matter that, as I have said, has wide implications for public administration in this country. We spent many months on the Joint Committee of Inquiry into the Banking Crisis and there was evidence that there was a lot of verbal advice and no records - there seemed to be a tradition of not writing things down. Many of the written records seem to have disappeared. Saying, "I said something to the Minister in a corridor and that was the advice" was a feature of the banking inquiry, I regret to say. We have to take those things on board. That is why I want published written advice which can be examined by the Comptroller and Auditor General or by committees of the Oireachtas. The word in the ear, in the tradition of public administration in this country, has served us very badly, to the tune of having to give banks €64 billion. There has to be a signal that this is the end of that. I want the advice to be subject to scrutiny and to be written down and to be available for surveillance by both Houses of the Oireachtas. It is the "Whatever you say, say nothing" approach to policy in Ireland that I am putting under pressure with this amendment. I do not want it put on a basis of constructive ambiguity but on a firm basis on which we can judge whether the advice was worthwhile or not - who gave it and who takes responsibility. We have not been doing that very much in a lot of public administration in this country.