The Gazette 1983

247 / 346

INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY OF IRELAND GAZETTE
Vol. 77 No. 9 November 1983
In this issue . Comment
Comment 239
Probability Theory and Rules of Proof 249
American Bar Association. London
Meeting, July 1985 253
IBA Regional Dinner 259
. . . Quis Custodiet?
Executive Editor:
Editorial Board:
Advertising:
Mary Buckley
Charles R. M. Meredith. Chairman
John F. Buckley
Gary Byme
William Earlcv
Michael V. O'Mahony
Maxwell Sweeney
Liam O hOisin. Telephone 305236
The views expressed in this publication, save where
other-wise indicated, are the views of the contributors
and not necessarily the views of the Council of the
Society.
The appearance of an advertisement in this publication
does not necessarily indicate approval by the Society for
the product or service advertised.
Published at Blackhall Place. Dublin 7.
RECENT events involving the appointment of an
administrator to the Private Motorist Protection
Association have raised questions about the efficacy of the
monitoring functions of our Public Service. There have been
other areas in which the monitoring functions vested in Central
or Local Government bodies have been seen to be carried out
inadequately or belatedly — notably in relation to
environmental or public safety matters.
We are fortunate in having a Public Service that is free from
the sort of corruption which appears to be endemic in many
countries. Unfortunately the efficacy orefficiency of that service
is increasingly being called into question. The public perception
is that promotion in the Public Service depends largely on
seniority, coupled with the absence of "black marks" on the
candidate's record. Such a system may well have considerable
advantages, but it is unlikely to encourage members of the
Service at any other than the highest level to be sufficiently
emboldened to take the sort of courageous steps which are from
time to time required of officials who are invested with
monitoring functions.
The fact that the political support of the Minister for the time
being will also be required for any firm action by the monitoring
authority raises further doubts as to whether the Public Service
is always the appropriate vehicle in which control of various
activities affecting the public interest should be vested.
Firm action is less easily taken against a populist movement
with laudable aims, such as the P.M.P.A., even when evidence
begins to emerge that it is running off the rails, than against
some fly-by-night financial opportunist.
In many areas of professional activity, the principle of
collective responsibility may be appropriate and the arguments
in favour of the principle are strong; however, in order for such a
system to operate fairly and efficiently, the overall monitoring
of those activities must be seen to be not only fair but effective.
There may well be a case for the establishment of an
independent monitoring body which would supervise the
activities of various bodies and organisations which are
permitted to deal with the public, but whose operations are
controlled by statute.
While there have been significant improvements in the
supervision of persons or organisations soliciting investments or
deposits from the public, it is anomalous that control is not
vested in one single monitoring authority.
The Central Bank is an example of a monitoring agency not
forming part of the Civil Service which is seen to perform its
regulatory functions over the banking community with
increasing firmness.
A body whose sole function, in contra-distinction to that of a
Government Department, is to ensure that the activities of
organisations or persons subject to statutory control are in fact
adequately monitored, would provide a more satisfactory
alternative to our present inadequate arrangements.
239