The Gazette 1983

INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY OF IRELAND GAZETTE Vol. 77 No. 9

November 1983

In this issue .

Comment

Comment

239

. . . Quis Custodiet?

Companies (Amendment) Act, 1983

241

R ECENT 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

Practice Notes

245

Salzburg Seminar Seeks Irish Fellows

247

Probability Theory and Rules of Proof

249

American Bar Association. London Meeting, July 1985

253

Council Resolution

253

Confessions in Criminal Cases

255

IBA Regional Dinner

259

Book Review

260

Professional Information

262

Executive Editor: Editorial Board:

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

Advertising:

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.