Vol. 515 No. 4
4 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the consultations, if any, he has had with the Secretary General of his Department in the latter's role as Chairman of the Implementation Group of the Strategic Management Initiative regarding the draft code of ethical conduct for civil servants which the group is considering; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5898/00]
In accordance with the normal procedures in place under the Strategic Management Initiative, the human resource management group has formulated a draft Civil Service code which is at present under discussion by the implementation group chaired by the secretary general of my Department. I expect the code to be submitted to Government shortly, following the normal consultation process with Departments. Consultations have not taken place to date between me and the secretary general of my Department regarding the code.
Will the code deal with retired officials taking up employment shortly after retirement in fields closely associated with the work they did when they were officials?
I understand that it will deal with staff who leave one area to enter a similar area.
Even if they retire? If their term of office ends, surely they cannot be told what they can or cannot do.
People who retire cannot be debarred but there must be a relationship set down.
Are we talking about those who retire before 60 or 65?
Yes, or those who build up a relationship while dealing with a company and then join that company. It would not, however, be possible to stop people who retire and then enter other employment.
This should be debated because there is more than one view about what is appropriate. If a person has obtained information and experience for one purpose and then it is applied for a separate purpose, it can raise ethical questions. Has the implementation group drawn on codes of conduct for officials in other countries to ensure best practice?
It has looked at our own administrative arrangements and legislation. It also looked at Civil Service handbooks, and at the codes of behaviour and standards built up for the Civil Service up to and including the SMI initiative, Delivering Better Government. It is also trying to introduce proposals that reflect what we have done legislatively through the Ethics in Public Office Act, the Public Service Management Act, the Freedom of Information Act, the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges and Immunities of Witnesses) Act and the standards in public office Bill, which is being drafted at present. It has also looked at Government handbooks, the Ombudsman guide to best practice and the quality customer service initiative and has tried to put together a modern code that will set a guideline for all civil servants.
Does the Taoiseach agree that it is unsatisfactory that former planning officers employed by the grossly understaffed planning departments of many county councils are turning up as planning consultants within a short time after retirement or prematurely leaving their jobs? They earn substantially more in the private sector dealing with their former workmates. Does he not agree that the State has a certain amount of intellectual property in the expertise it allows people to gain while in its employment and that it has a right to some form of lien on that property? These are genuine issues, although one would not wish to push them too far. At a time of overheating in the economy we run the serious risk of denuding the public service of key talent through financial incentives which allow those people to use, to their individual profit, their intellectual property provided to them by the State at great expense.
The underlying purpose of this code is in the first instance to try to make explicit the core values and behaviour requirements in the Civil Service at all levels, to identify further values to help civil servants to manage the environment of deepening change and to set out an unambiguous framework of standards, behaviours and values which will be a reference for all civil servants when undertaking their work into the future. This probably covers Deputy Bruton's concerns because it deals with the future. Had it been raised five years ago it may have been argued that the concerns it sought to address were hypothetical. That is not the case today, because if my information is three quarters correct, civil servants who leave now, even at senior level, can earn three times what we can give them. While that applies to limited numbers, it is the reality. It is a matter of concern. I am not sure much can be done about it, although this will be discussed by this group and it is something the Government has discussed. When people leave they have completed their employment and I am not sure anything can be done about that.
However, the Deputy's point on the intellectual property built up by the State is correct. A person can leave the State's employment and advise others who are opposed to State policy. It happens in many areas, including in my own profession of accountancy and related tax areas. Many of the people with whom I studied tax 23 or 24 years ago and who worked in the Revenue are now some of the leading experts on tax issues working on the other side of the fence. I am not sure if it is possible to do anything about these issues.
I accept the rigidities within the public sector pay system and I raised the question about the CSSO and the NTMA model last week. Does the Taoiseach not agree with Deputy Bruton that an impediment could be imposed on a process whereby a person taking retirement from a county council planning department in his early fifties will do so on the clear understanding with the county manager that when he leaves on a Friday on a certain salary he will not then be recruited by the planning department as a consultant the following Monday with a salary that is a multiple of two or three times his salary on retirement? Surely this type of system is fuelling overheating of the economy and there must be ways of avoiding it. There is anecdotal evidence to suggest this is happening, but the factual evidence will never be obtained to substantiate it.
It is happening.
That is correct. I do not believe there is an argument about it.
It is impossible to prove connivance.
I do not say there is connivance.
If someone leaves on a Friday and takes up work the following Monday it is hardly a coincidence.
That is happening in the planning area all over the country. In the Civil Service code an attempt is being made to establish an unambiguous framework of standards, behaviours and values which will be a reference for all civil servants in undertaking their work for the future. In compiling it, the group can look at the terms of employment of civil servants and whatever other standards are relevant. Nothing can be done in circumstances where people retire or finish their duty, or where the seven year rule is operative.
I accept that.
Would this problem not be more productively addressed from the angle of the intellectual property of the State rather than ethics? While it is very difficult to establish if there is anything ethically wrong in somebody moving from one employment to another, there is a case for saying that there is intellectual property in the ownership of the State. For example, members of the press corps in Brussels can claim ownership of intellectual property with regard to the questions they ask at press briefings and they can object to these being disseminated on the web to newspapers offices at home on the grounds that they, as experts in Brussels, have intellectual property in the questions they ask. Surely the concept of intellectual property is now extended to the point that the State could similarly claim some intellectual property in the training it gives to planning officers, tax inspectors and senior people in various fields where there is a very active private market in similar skills.
Perhaps Deputy Bruton is right to say we could look at this matter from the perspective of intellectual property. It may mean getting involved in a very intellectual argument about whether implementation could be enforced. The issue is being looked at, but it has not been included in this code because it is concerned with serving civil servants. While the matter is under discussion, it does not cover the aspects mentioned by the Deputy. I doubt if it would be possible to implement what he suggests.
I put it to the Taoiseach that we should not try to reinvent the wheel. This issue has confronted Governments in many countries and we should look at what has happened elsewhere to see if we can draw on parallels and precedents. I understand Canada has a two year rule where one cannot—
A question for the Taoiseach.
Is the Taoiseach aware that other countries have introduced provisions which address this issue and does he agree that they could be pointers to the way we should deal with similar issues?
From my knowledge of other countries, the rules are even slacker and people can almost be engaged in a consultative capacity while holding a job.
What about the situation in Canada?
I know from my colleagues in Europe that no such measures are in place.
