Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 12 May 2010

Vol. 202 No. 10

Code of Conduct for Civil Servants: Motion.

Senator Dan Boyle

I move:

That this House welcomes the commitment in the reviewed Programme for Government to extend the provisions of the Code of Conduct for Civil Servants in relation to the acceptance of outside appointments and of consultancy engagement following resignation or retirement to all Public Servants in designated posts as to ensure that they shall not, within twelve months of resigning or retiring from the service:

(a) accept an offer of appointment from an employer outside the Civil Service where it is deemed to create a conflict of interest; and

(b) accept an engagement in a particular consultancy project, where the nature and terms of such appointment or engagement could lead to a conflict of interest;

without first obtaining approval from the Outside Appointments Boards and looks forward to legislation in this area being speedily enacted.

I welcome the Minister of State. The motion is taken directly from the reviewed programme for Government and the Green Party Members, in seeking the support of the House for it, will endeavour to underline the principle behind it.

We know from experience that in moving from important public sector roles which involve decision making and the acquiring and assessment of information, particularly commercial sensitive information, there is a need for a cooling off period. Such a provision is included in the code of conduct for civil servants and there is a proposal in the reviewed programme for Government to extend it to public servants. My colleagues will point to the areas in which there are inconsistencies and the reasons such an extension is needed. This debate provides an opportunity to discuss the conflicts of interest for those us of in elected public office and how measures can and should be put in place in that regard.

The reason there is a need for a cooling off period is not so much that we should presume that anyone leaving a public position to enter a remunerated position in the private sector would be automatically inclined towards engaging in base practices, but rather that there should be an assumption that those who serve in public office do so for the best of motives and that they would carry through on this philosophy, irrespective of whether they subsequently find themselves in public or private sector employment. A cooling off period is needed because we cannot allow the perception to take hold that this might be the case or that such a scenario might develop. I do not believe this to be unique to Irish politics or administration. The type of arguments we are making and would like to see enshrined in law have been shown by organisations such as Transparency International to be flawed throughout jurisdictions in many countries. If we were to put our legislation on a different level, we would be ahead of several other countries that have failed to tackle this difficulty in a more obvious way.

One of the reasons I believe we need to do this is that of international reputation. We are living in a time when how we are viewed by the outside world in terms of corporate governance issues is important. A particular example cited by Transparency International is the move by the former German Chancellor, Mr. Gerhard Schröder, to the board of the Russian company, Gazprom, which was treated with a degree of heavy scepticism, in particular in the United States. When these types of appointments are made, eyebrows are raised. There is a need to have in place proper national and international standards.

We have in place a code of standards for the Civil Service. It is fair to say we have developed a number of codes of standards for several areas of public life, including for Members of this and the other House and for employees and representatives of the Health Service Executive. There is also in place a code of conduct in respect of officeholders. There are differing standards in terms of how this particular principle applies. My colleague, Senator Dearey, will highlight how in particular a lack of this cooling off period in local government is one of the reasons we need to upgrade our legislation in this area. There have been many instances of people holding high rank county manager positions going straight from those positions into allied private sector positions which compromised their previous role and the people in the private sector to whom they subsequently allied themselves.

The wider issue in terms of how these standards should apply in public life will accompany the debate on the legislation. A recent media example applied at European Union level the principle included in this motion, namely, if within a set period a person, having held a particular public office, is offered a position, he or she must apply to an outside body seeking permission to do so and may be so granted if a conflict of interest is not seen to exist. Even at a European level this is not as strong as it could be. The idea of an ad hoc committee stating something is right or wrong and setting particular conditions and not having the means to police this effectively does not add to confidence in the process. Legislation in this area is about public confidence. It is not about the personal characteristics of the individual who finds himself or herself in this situation or about the presumption that corruption exists or will exist because of that situation. It is about having in place standards that ensure these questions cannot arise in the first instance.

When it comes to discussing the legislation, it should be taken as a given that 12 months is a sufficient cooling off period in respect of which a position should not be taken up unless there are exceptional circumstances. It is not the case that a person should have to disprove, rather that he or she must prove the compromise will not exist otherwise. I do not believe we have such legislation in place yet. We do have in place legislation in respect of civil servants and need such legislation in respect of the public service. I would argue we also need legislation in respect of elected public officeholders. This debate presents us with an opportunity in this regard. We will not be making decisions today but we can put on record the need to ensure as broad a reform in this area as possible. This is about public confidence.

In terms of how legislation in this area might affect an individual, we must also consider economic circumstances. In having in place strict legislation on a cooling off period, one is undermining a person's ability to earn remuneration and to seek new employment. The other side to this coin — ironically enough, we recently debated the issue of political pensions — is what type of safeguards are in place to ensure people, having left public office, are not tempted to take up compromising positions in the private sector. Issues such as parachute payments and how and when pension payments come into play are also a part of this debate. An individual should not be compromised from going into a private sector position because he or she held public office. At the same time, people need to be restricted, because of the office they held, from taking up specific private sector positions. It is a conundrum and something we must legislate for. We must also ensure no one suffers economic disadvantage.

An amendment to the motion will be moved later. I am unable to speak to the amendment until it has been moved and am also not in a position to say how it will be responded to by the Minister of State.

Senator Joe O’Toole

So, if we are nice, it will be accepted.

Senator Dan Boyle

No. I am still trying to understand the link between the amendment and the motion.

Senator Mary M. White

Hear, hear.

Senator Joe O’Toole

We will explain it.

Senator Niall Ó Brolcháin

That is the oldest trick in the book.

Senator Dan Boyle

A question arises whether the Government is in a position to meet what is being asked for in the motion. I do not have a difficulty with the amendment in general terms. I believe the debate, the Minister of State's contribution and how I will respond on behalf of my colleagues at the end of the debate will determine that. I am anxious to hear the argument that will be advanced by the movers of the amendment. I suspect it has come about as a result of a fairly open and honest statement by the Department of Finance on the resources that exist within that Department to deal with the difficult problems with which we as a country and it are faced. I see that as a more specific issue than the one being debated in the House today, but we still need to have that debate. I do not believe it is too untoward for Members to expect some statement of policy on how a shortage of particular skills or an identification of a lack of particular skills can and would be met. I remain unsure if that issue is part of this debate.

I invite my colleague, Senator Dearey, to advance the argument further in favour of acceptance of this motion by the House.

Senator Mark Dearey

I second the motion. I want to address the issue of a cooling off period from the perspective of local government, which has been my touchstone since I arrived in this House for reasons which Members will appreciate. There are particular problems when people are moving from the public service to the private sector without any cooling off period, as is currently the case. It is possible that a person in a senior position can, when on extended leave of absence, establish a consultancy and present a report that can then be adjudicated upon by people who will be his or her juniors should he or she return to the previous position held in the public service. There are many anomalies. People in the public service can experience great difficulties in terms of dealing with former colleagues or recently departed colleagues in regard to planning matters in particular. A cooling off period is necessary. I take some issue with the period of one year which Senator Boyle considers to be enough. I appreciate, however, that we must be real about people's lives and that we cannot put them or their skill sets into cold storage, so to speak, on a long-term basis. The motion is about acknowledging that potential conflicts of interest exist and trying to create a period where this can be diluted, although the potential for conflict of interest never goes away entirely. We cannot legislate against people's right to employment in their area of skill and we need to find a balance between having a cooling off period and not creating complete inertia between the public and private sectors.

This extends in particular to very senior positions in local government, such as county managers who are particularly powerful individuals. I would argue that they are probably the most powerful group in local government. They enjoy very extensive powers which were extended in recent years and cause some resentment among councillors who have lost several reserve functions over the years. There is a range of areas in which county managers have exercised power and in which they could potentially work in the future, such as waste management. For reasons of confidence, transparency and reputation, I see a need for a cooling off period to be established and we propose this period to be one year.

With regard to reputation, I attended a meeting of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Economic and Regulatory Affairs at which a very interesting presentation was made by Grant Thornton on corporate governance in listed Irish companies. We urgently need to come up with an Irish code of corporate governance, given that the combined code of corporate governance we share with the UK is about to become the UK code of corporate governance. This will bring into sharp relief the fact that we have been using a combined code until now. Apparently we are the exception in the EU in that we lack our own specific corporate governance code for listed companies.

This issue is in the ether, so to speak, and I mentioned the subject matter of the committee meeting to highlight the issue of Ireland's reputation. At the meeting, representatives from Grant Thornton stated: "It is clear from reading the international press that governance scandals in Ireland, coupled with the severe downturn in our economy, have caused our reputation in international markets to suffer." I acknowledge this is strictly in the area of listed companies and our international reputation. In terms of tackling the entire area of governance of public and commercial life in this country, however, it is of a piece with what we propose.

The motion is also of a piece with an entire section of the renewed programme for Government negotiated last autumn. Section 8 on enhancing our democracy and public services proposes establishing an independent electoral commission and the publication of a White Paper on local government reform, which is due. It also makes proposals on politicians' pay, which has been addressed although perhaps not in the structured way we would have liked. None the less, it has been addressed and some of the heat has been taken out of the issue and some of the sense of scandal people felt has been addressed. The issue of public service reform in is the pot now and there are an enormous range of public sector reform proposals in the programme for Government, all of which I believe will contribute to a closer relationship between the people and their public service and to a more transparent public service which the people can see is working. If it is not working, people will have recourse for complaint. Other areas include hiring and promotion criteria to be reviewed by an independent body; the reform of the top level appointments commission which will address senior positions in the public and civil service; and the cooling off period.

The programme for Government commits to extending to all public servants in designated posts the provisions of the code of conduct for civil servants on the acceptance of outside appointments and of consultancy engagements following resignation or retirement to ensure they do not accept, within twelve months of resigning or retiring from the service, an offer of appointment from an employer outside the Civil Service or an engagement in a particular consultancy project, where the nature and terms of such appointment or engagement are deemed as possibly leading to or creating a conflict of interest, without first obtaining approval from the outside appointments board. The motion closely reflects that commitment in the programme for Government.

Without going into specifics I can think of several instances where public trust has been tested at the very least and possibly damaged by the indecent haste with which people with very confidential and commercially sensitive information can move without a cooling off period. We need to address this. Transparency International has written on this issue on a European-wide basis. It identifies many levels of corruption, and I use that word very advisedly because it is very easy to throw it around and very often it can do damage where damage should not be done. There are soft forms of corruption in public life and Transparency International identifies the issue of stepping down from a senior position and taking up a very prominent position on the board of a listed company, such as the example cited by Senator Boyle of Mr. Gerhard Schröder's move to Gazprom, which The Washington Post described as a sell-out. Transparency International states that Europe in general is not immune from this and that the European Union is very diverse and not free from corruption at all levels. It stated it found that, in western European Union member states, there is a grander, more private sector related type of corruption, and conflict of interest plays a role in this context. It cites examples of senior officials who, with indecent haste, find themselves on boards.

In recent days I raised this issue with regard to the move of the former Commissioner, Mr. McCreevy, to Ryanair. I was puzzled as to how the ad hoc committee left it to himself to adjudicate on what he does or does not say or do. Given that the Commission’s Internal Market division is investigating seven instances of arrangements Ryanair has with European airports, it is baffling. We should not have to look and wonder in these instances. We should have clear demarcation of one year and, beyond that point, there would be no cause for distrust, scandal and further corrosion of the very necessary relationship that exists between the public service and those it serves. Once that period would have passed, people would be free to do what they will as long as they would continue to respect the Official Secrets Act. I commend the motion and thank Members for their attention.

Senator Joe O’Toole

I move amendment No. 1:

After "enacted." to add the following:

"Conscious of various staffing embargoes and concerned about the lack of qualified and experienced personnel available to the Government and the Civil Service, in areas such as banking, bond markets, global economic models, financial instruments, credit rating and related functions, Seanad Éireann calls on the Government to outline the current arrangements and proposals for the proper recruitment, retention and conditions of service of such personnel.".

I welcome the motion and I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I will endeavour presently to build the bridge asked for by Senator Boyle. It is important to recognise there is nothing new about this and I support him in this regard. Some years back when I was working on a related matter, I looked at the Capitol Hill booklet which includes precisely this requirement. There must be a year's gardening leave prior to taking up another position. There is nothing new about this and nothing that any fair-minded person could raise with it. The only questions I have on the wording of the motion concern the membership of the outside appointments board and why politicians are excluded. It is somewhat unbalanced if a senior civil servant can be made subject to certain conditions governing his or her move into a conflicting position but Ministers cannot. Perhaps that is intended and I look forward to hearing the answer to that question.

The fact that the amendment is in the form of an addendum means I do not have a problem with the motion. That goes without saying. It is very clear. It is not just about bringing in experts but also about experts leaving. I ask the Green Party to think about one point. If the motion is agreed, we would put in place a certain set of procedures for somebody who might gain certain information and then move into a position of a conflict of interest. The same applies to somebody from a specialist interest group who works in a Department for a short time on a temporary basis, on the inside of a Chinese wall, as it were, in budgeting, finance or whatever, finishes his or her contract and moves out. That is why my amendment contains the phrase "outline the current arrangements and proposals ... and conditions of service of such personnel". It is equally important in that situation.

One cannot have a person coming in the door with a whole set of skills, which are welcome, learning a whole new insight into what is happening and then leaving and selling his or her wares to the opposition. There is nothing new about this; I have raised it many times. My colleague, Senator Ross, tabled a motion on this some years ago. Nothing has been left unsaid. We need a certain level of complementary staff. It is not about people leaving; it also about people coming in. It also raises questions about people in senior positions who have retired from a Department being brought in as consultants to work for a period of time. That needs to be covered, and that is why our amendment does exactly that.

We have to ensure there is fairness, openness and transparency in all of these things. That is the reason for the motion. The reference the proposer made was to a situation which arose in the meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts last week. We have had many long debates in this House about the lack of certain personnel in the Department of Finance. I have the highest respect for the intellectual capacity of the members of the Department of Finance. Anything I say should not be misunderstood in any way but ties into the comments of the Secretary General of the Department last week, to which I will refer.

Apparently there were no economists in the Department at the time of the crisis. Everyone was prepared to blame the Department for that. I raised the issue but never got an answer. Why was that the case? It so happened that I knew the answer to the question. We could not afford to pay economists who had the skill sets we wanted to stay in the public sector and we had no way around that. They all leaked to the private sector. The point of my amendment is to ensure we can reverse the situation and address how we can bring a skill set back from the private sector if we want to do that.

We need to have a way of doing that, and not in the ad hoc manner which appears to be the case at the current time. A question was asked at the meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts last week of the Secretary General of the Department of Finance, Mr. Kevin Cardiff, on the question of skills in the Department. I am not being critical of him. I welcome his statement as openness and transparency in action and on which he needs to be complimented. He said:

One of my colleagues is giving me lists of qualifications of staff in the Department which I can read out. It is a highly educated bunch, with a wide range of relevant skills and qualifications. Getting to more of the specifics, the fact of holding a particular degree in a particular discipline does not necessarily qualify you for the range of things that can arise. It is a more specific expertise, I think, the Deputy is talking about.

I completely agree with that.

I wish to emphasise another comment Mr. Cardiff made: "I do not believe the Department of Finance currently has sufficient expertise to deal with the issues at hand." It is a very fair, honest and open comment. No one else seems to think it was important. It hardly got a line. It was worthy of editorials and should have sent shivers through the Government. Is it because of embargoes in the public sector or restrictive pay arrangements in the Civil Service? If it is, I want to know about it. I tabled an amendment to the motion moved by Senator Boyle because this is a very serious matter.

Mr. Cardiff, who is the second most senior civil servant in the country and is in charge of the most important Department in the country, also said, "My personal view is that the Department needs to increase its level of specialist skills." How can we do that? We do not necessarily want someone who is an expert in a marginal, though important, area of finance to come into a full-time career in the Civil or public service. That may not be what is required.

In response to another question Mr. Cardiff said:

One matter to which the Deputy referred and in respect of which he piqued my interest is the notion of appointing a risk officer. Such an individual would operate ... there is something to the Deputy's suggestion and I will give it some consideration.

We know we had a lack of expertise when the problem hit the fan two years ago. I am not being critical of anyone. That is the reality.

We know we have expertise of a general nature in the Department, namely, people who can do what is required of them as civil servants. We have listened to the Secretary General of the Department who has said the skill set level needs to be increased. The world of finance is becoming more and more complex. Contracts for difference can be in 24 different forms and special purpose vehicles can be in a million different forms. We have to understand banking, risk assessment and management and credit rating, which we know about and which is being discussed in Europe which may set up an official European credit rating agency. All these things are happening. Where are the people to do it?

My reason for tabling the amendment cannot be questioned. I am asking Senator Boyle that we hear how the Department and the Government intend dealing with the issue. I want to hear that embargoes and current pay rates will not cut across it. I want to hear that people who leave, having been brought in on a temporary basis, will not be a risk to us in the future. I want to know the arrangements for such people in terms of their conditions of service. These are the issues. The amendment complements the motion and must be considered from that point of view. It is a very serious issue.

I will concentrate on the Department of Finance because that is from where my amendment grew. I honestly believe that if we made this one change in the Civil Service, it would transform it, release huge energy and expertise and open competition for all promoted posts in the Civil Service, which is supposed to be Green Party policy. That single change would allow civil servants, who have extraordinary intellectual ability, to fight for their places, and I have no doubt they would do so.

I am a member of the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security, which is as technical an area as any other, a point the Green Party will accept. Every aspect of it, from carbon to renewables to energy measurement, is technical. It is unfair to try to depend constantly on general civil servants to deal with that. We are waiting for a climate change Bill, a geothermal rights Bill and a foreshore licence Bill because the small cohort we have to draft legislation are busy doing other things. It should be the case that we can bring people in to do these things. The Secretary General made certain references to what he had done to deal with this. The amendment is not mischievous, rather it is an attempt to create a complementary situation to move the argument forward and examine the new scenario of flexibility of movement in and out of the public sector.

I did not touch on the issue of people on a pension who also earn a salary in the public sector, something with which I agree. Capitol Hill changed the legislation on pensions in a very complex way in order that someone could be on a pension and earning a salary while working in the same enterprise at the same time. It is something for which I asked 15 years ago and is badly needed now.

Senator Shane Ross

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 I 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 they 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.

Senator Mary M. White

I welcome the Minister of State and the Green Party motion. I was a civil servant in the Office of Public Works and the long tradition of integrity in the Civil Service is an asset to be acknowledged and has played a big part in the progress of the country since independence. It is equally important to support procedures underpinning and protecting that tradition of integrity and public service in this more complex world where the interface between public and private sectors carries many dangers to that tradition.

I support the early introduction of legislation or regulations to extend the code which applies to designated senior civil servants to comparable posts in the wider public service, including local authorities and State agencies.

As Senator Dearey noted, county managers are among the most powerful groups in the country. The extent of their role and remit places them in an extremely powerful position.

When public servants are engaged in approving permissions or funding which have benefits for the private sector vigilance is required, as proposed in the renewed programme for Government. In addition to being concerned about employment or consultancy engagement in the year after retirement, we should be equally concerned with restricting discussions between senior public servants and potential employers in the period before they retire. Such discussions or agreements in principle about possible employment or consultancy after retirement pose even greater dangers to good practice. If such discussions take place prior to retirement, they have the potential to influence decisions while the public servant in question is still in post.

The key screening body will be the outside appointments board established by the Minister for Finance and comprising of five members, three of whom, including the chairperson, will be drawn from the private sector, while the remaining two will be the Secretary General to the Government and Secretary General of the Department of Finance. The chairperson of the board will report annually to the Government. I call for greater transparency in the work of the outside appointments board, especially given that its remit will be extended to the wider public service.

I do not support the amendment tabled by Senators O'Toole and Ross as it does not relate to the ethical behaviour agenda of the motion. While it is concerned with a legitimate issue, namely, the technical expertise available to the Government and Civil Service, it should be considered on another occasion. The amendment risks diluting the focus on the core ethical objectives of the main motion. I congratulate my Green Party colleagues on tabling this motion.

Senator Liam Twomey

No one can object to this harmless motion, although the Green Party may take some self-satisfaction and a warm glow from its decision to address the issue of ethics in public office. One does not need to refer to Gazprom or former European commissioners to discover what is wrong with corporate governance in this country. One needs only look at the boards of CIE and some of the banks to see lads looking after themselves. As a party in government, the Green Party could actively address issues of that nature.

We have an excellent Civil Service in which corruption is at a low level and which is fair in its dealings with everybody. While instances of abuse of power occur, they are infrequent. Conflicts of interest will always arise and some of the worst abuses in recent years have not been by civil servants but by former officeholders and civil servants moving into the private sector. The Green Party should have addressed issues of this nature in its motion. Confining its scope to the code of conduct for civil servants somehow implies that some senior members of the Civil Service are engaged in wrongdoing when this is clearly not the case. Civil servants are, as I indicated, extremely fair.

If the Green Party was genuinely concerned about issues of this nature, it could have taken a number of steps in the past couple of years. Transparency in government business is very important in reducing abuse of power, conflicts of interest and corruption. The Green Party, which was in Opposition at the time, railed against amendments made to the Freedom of Information Act. Now that it is in government, it could reverse these changes. I say this because I am annoyed about the hypocrisy evident in some of the statements made in this regard.

Whistleblower legislation could be applied to all Departments, State agencies and other bodies established at one remove from Ministers. The Green Party could support such legislation as a means of fostering accountability and transparency in the wider public service. It has not done so and whistleblower provisions have been introduced in a piecemeal manner in various Bills. The Green Party could demand the introduction of whistleblower's legislation and reversal of some of the amendments made to the Freedom of Information Act. Changes to the Act were not related to its operation but designed to keep things quiet and block journalists and Opposition parties from accessing information.

While the motion refers to the introduction of legislation on the code of conduct for civil servants, it does not indicate a timeframe or refer to potential complications or problems that must be overcome. It is, therefore, little more than window dressing. We deserve better and the Green Party should have taken a stronger line. Perhaps when Deputy Boyle responds to the debate, he will use stronger words and call for a reversal of changes in the freedom of information legislation and the introduction of a whistleblower's charter for everyone in the civil and public service. These steps would improve transparency and accountability and, in so doing, reduce corruption and conflicts of interest.

It is easy to accuse retiring public and civil servants who take up positions in the private sector that are similar in nature to their previous employment of a conflict of interest. If, however, we had greater transparency in the work of senior civil servants and Ministers, we would know whether decisions they made before leaving their positions could give rise to conflicts of interest in their new roles in the private sector.

The Minister of State's predecessor in the Office of Public Works seamlessly moved from handling the property portfolio of the State to handling the interests of the Construction Industry Federation. While one could argue that a conflict of interest arises in this connection, we, unlike the Minister of State who has access to the relevant files, have no idea whether any decisions taken by his predecessor conflict with his present role in the private sector. This problem would be overcome by introducing legislation to provide protection for whistleblowers who decide to highlight conflicts of interest. It would also enhance transparency and accountability in government. No action is being taken on this issue and both Government parties have voted to block initiatives in this area since the previous general election.

I ask the Green Party to consider introducing legislation that would address circumstances in which serious concerns are expressed to members of the Government and Opposition about the manner in which certain State and semi-State organisations and banks operate. Greater transparency would create public confidence that we are doing our absolute best to ensure the Government operates in a fair manner and corruption is kept to a minimum. One must be careful in this respect because I do not wish to imply that corruption is widespread in the civil or public service. That is clearly not the case and I have certainly not heard anything to suggest otherwise, even on the qt. We have an excellent public service. That does not mean we cannot give confidence to the people we represent that we are doing our best to ensure everything is transparent and everybody is accountable to them. These are the things the Government should try to achieve.

The issues raised by the Independent Senators in the House deserve further discussion. They are different from the motion but they deserve discussion because they are part of the problems we face at the moment. They deserve a motion of their own.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Before continuing, I welcome Councillor Sean McKiernan from County Cavan to the Visitors Gallery.

Senator Niall Ó Brolcháin

I listened with interest to the comments of all Senators. Senator Twomey spoke about the whistleblower's charter and he is absolutely right. We need to look at the options that will stamp out corruption in our public service and in our society. It is an endless fight and there are many different ideas. Perhaps Senator Twomey and Fine Gael might support the Kenny report in future. It was produced a number of years ago.

My grandfather was a civil servant in the Department of Finance. He always said his greatest regret was that when the State was founded, we did not set it up in such a way that profits from the rezoning of land accrued to the State. It is never too late to deal with that. One of the greatest areas of corruption in this State is in respect of rezoning land. While land can be rezoned at the stroke of a pen and a person can become very wealthy simply as a result of a vote cast by a number of councillors, the potential for corruption exists. Whether this corruption exists on a wide-scale basis is open to investigation. I have seen instances where that is the case. They have been well documented. Perhaps Fine Gael members might look at the Kenny report. At a time when local authorities find it very difficult to finance the various facilities we all want to see, such as community centres, schools and so on, the profits from rezoning accruing to them would be a good way of doing business. It is a much better way of doing business than allowing a speculator to buy land, have it rezoned and put the money into his pocket.

I would like to respond to a couple of points made by Senator Ross. The programme for Government calls for the introduction of a register of lobbyists, including professional, corporate and non-governmental organisation lobbyists. This commitment is separate from this motion but it is relevant to the Senator's comments. Another commitment in the programme for Government states we will ensure all promotion in the public service is on the basis of merit, eliminating seniority as a determining factor in any public sector appointment. Senator Ross is right to make his points, but we sought to have them included in the programme for Government and they are.

I have seen situations where planners from a local authority would simply migrate to working for a developer with whom they had been doing business previously. I have seen instances of that. It is wrong and that is what this motion is about. If qualified planners working for local authorities decide to leave those authorities, they have a right to employment. It is possible that those planners can work for other local authorities or they can work outside the jurisdiction in which they had been working. There are many jobs in the State which these planners can do, using their expertise gained from previous employment. There is a problem, however, if a planner can leave the planning department of a local authority and then start working for one of the companies on which he or she was previously adjudicating. There is a major conflict of interest involved.

The Green Party agrees that Ministers, Senators, TDs and councillors should definitely be included in any legislation on public servants. The Local Government Act 2001 states it is the duty of every employee and councillor to maintain proper standards of integrity, conduct and concern for the public interest. That is in the existing legislation, but the guidelines need to be sharpened up and the 12-month rule is a good one. There has been debate on whether 12 months is enough or whether a person should be allowed to work at any stage in particular positions when those positions relate to the Official Secrets Act.

I have seen councillors working with developers and speculators and then having land rezoned that belongs to the people with whom they are working. The councillors must declare to the council their conflict of interest in that regard. The danger is that their party colleagues or other councillors will end up rezoning their land. It is a difficult situation when a councillor's land is rezoned, but it does happen. I am not 100% sure how we can deal with that but we need to look at it.

The other issue that concerns me is when councillors set up companies to manage conferences. Many councillors and other politicians attend conferences, and councillors often supplement their income by claiming expenses for these conferences even though they often do not turn up to them. This area needs to be made transparent and while the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has reduced the amount of money spent on conferences, they should be properly regulated in an open fashion. The companies that run conferences should be properly registered.

The battle against the conflict of interest is an ongoing one. As Senator Ross said, it is difficult to pin much of it down because it is related to personal integrity. Nevertheless, we must bring in as many Bills as possible to limit it. I commend the motion and I commend Senator Boyle on bringing it forward.

Senator Alex White

It is important to have this discussion and I welcome the fact that the Green Party has facilitated it. However, we are just skimming on the surface of a much more profound set of problems. While I agree with the proposal, none of us should fool ourselves into thinking that if we introduce such a measure it would confront or deal with many of the fundamental problems and concerns we have with regard to corruption or the risk of corruption as we have seen in recent decades. I agree with some of the points made by Senator Ó Brolcháin in that regard.

In saying that this is an important discussion we should continue at some further stage, I express the usual slight scepticism or even cynicism over the terms of a motion asking us to welcome something and stating we should look forward to legislation. I am looking forward to many things, including my summer holidays and going home later on.

Senator Liam Twomey

The Senator is fairly certain of those happening.

Senator Alex White

I am reasonably certain. I may be less certain about a by-election than some other things. I am looking forward to many things. Of course we would prefer to be considering an actual proposal of legislation rather than stating we look forward to it. I agree with Senator Twomey on that point that it is harmless enough. From the point of view of it facilitating a discussion, I am prepared to accept it is a good thing to do.

The point made by Senator Ó Brolcháin really gets to the heart of the matter. He said that much of this depends on personal integrity, which is absolutely the case. There are people in the public service, in politics and in public life generally upon whom the public rely and in whom they repose a tremendous amount of trust. There is a very high expectation of people. Those people, including us, are expected to have a moral and ethical compass. That is an expectation that goes with the job. It is not something that can be imposed through arbitrary limits or arbitrary rules, much as I believe that certain rules are important. We have seen a breakdown in trust in many areas. I want to support and build on a Civil Service in which we have a great level of trust. I still have a very high level of trust for civil and public servants, including public servants with whom I have worked in local authorities. They make an enormous contribution. Pretty much all of those with whom I have had any contact are people of very high integrity and often of very high expertise who need support, and often more training and skills. The Independent Senators' amendment is not all that far removed from what we are discussing. We want a level of training, skills and education, particularly educational qualifications when they are appointed to senior positions. We need to be able to trust people and going with that is an ethical core which we expect of people and which we largely get.

The motion refers to the "reviewed Programme for Government". I presume the motion was intended to refer to the "renewed programme for Government". That is just one of the many things that needs to be addressed. I agree with Senator Twomey that we cannot divorce this measure from matters like a register for lobbyists, for which my party has pressed for many years. There has been disgraceful backsliding on the freedom of information legislation. If the Green Party in government is serious it should be demanding that those reverses are changed. There is a need for whistleblower legislation, on which the Labour Party has also made proposals. That is what we want to see happening. We do not want just to look forward to it; we want to see it actually happening.

The issue of a cooling off period affecting the legislation we are discussing here would be a matter of negotiation and discussion with the public servants concerned. However, it cannot be that complex in the greater scheme to amend this legislation and add a list of designated posts to those already covered by the code of conduct. As the code of conduct already exists, it is simply a matter of extending it to new groups of people and offices. Obviously we are at some disadvantage having not heard what the Minister of State proposes to say in the debate. If I do not have the opportunity to hear him in the Chamber owing to another commitment, I look forward to reviewing his contribution later. I would like to see some commitment from the Government to bring forward legislation on this issue, which does not seem to be enormously complicated if there is a political will to deliver it.

I referred to an arbitrary limit. A one-year limit is proposed here. In 2007 my party's manifesto proposed a two-year cooling-off period. Senator Ross made a point on integrity that I intended making myself. When a limit of one year or two years is set we need to be careful not to send out a signal that at the end of that period there is an unleashing of practically anything that the individual can do. That cannot be right. The Minister of State will correct me if I am wrong in this. I believe the persons who are required to adhere to the Official Secrets Act have a continuing requirement into the future. There can be no temporal limit to a person's responsibilities under the Official Secrets Act. That is akin to the common law duty of confidence in ordinary private sector employment, which continues into the future. One cannot be revealing secrets or matters that have come to one's attention that were germane to the work one did in a Department or local authority if they are covered by the Official Secrets Act. That covers the individual permanently. Similarly in the private sector, every employee has a duty of confidence to his or her employer which extends into the future. We need to ensure there is a very high expectation of people into the future, notwithstanding that the one-year or two-year period has expired.

On the duty of confidence, Senator Ó Brolcháin made the point about planning and local authorities. This is probably where this risk has arisen in its darkest. There is a perception that if there has not been abuse, at least there is a risk of abuse. It would be absolutely unacceptable and it is probably axiomatic that, for example, a director of planning in a local authority might retire and go on to work on the same file on which he or she had been working while director of planning. While I do not know the actual regulation preventing that happening, it would be extraordinary if that were to occur. It seems to me it simply could not occur. I do not know the precise code of conduct or what prevents that happening. It would seem to almost go without saying that somebody could not turn around and work on that file. I do not know the mechanism of how that is restricted, but I presume it is restricted.

However, a director of planning might retire and while he or she does not work on the same file on which he or she was making decisions last week, he or she uses the expertise he or she has built up over the years. Ultimately there is not very much we can do about that. People pick up expertise in all areas of work in which they are involved and it inheres in them. They have just developed this expertise and knowledge. It is not possible to take it away from them. There is a grey area in trying to distinguish a real conflict of interest, which is a risk, and people being free — because we cannot stop people — to move from the public service into the private sector and doing jobs for which they will be sought because of the expertise and experience they have, perhaps as the head of a Department, and the esteem in which they are held. Some former politicians go back to the Law Library or into journalism. As people will be sought after, we need to make the distinction between the two and address the problem we want to address, which is the risk of conflict of interest rather than a generalised restriction on people which would be impossible to implement and probably wrong in principle to try to do.

I believe it was Senator Ross who made the point that a significant onus needs to be placed on the individual. This takes me back to where I started and what Senator Ó Brolcháin said. We need to rely on the quality of the people we have in our public service and the high expectation we have of them and indeed of politicians to carry out their public duties properly and to understand that if they have had that trust reposed in them for seven years, 14 years or whatever it is, that trust does not suddenly stop on the day they walk out of the Department. There is a residual duty related to the fact that they have been in important public positions. They cannot abuse that information or in any way leave themselves open to the allegation that they are using it in a conflicted way.

I am nitpicking, but my point is relevant. I am interested in who makes decisions about whether there is deemed to be a conflict of interest. The motion states an offer of appointment from an employer cannot be accepted outside the Civil Service where it is deemed to create a conflict of interest. It does not state who deems it to be such but continues in paragraph (b) to state the person concerned “cannot accept an engagement in a particular consultancy project, where the nature and terms of such appointment or engagement could lead to a conflict of interest; without first obtaining approval from the Outside Appointments Board”. In the motion the requirement to obtain approval seems to cover both paragraphs, (a) and (b), whereas in the text of the new programme for Government the outside appointments board seems to be involved only in the second case and the text appears to be silent on who decides on whether there is deemed to be a conflict of interest. Perhaps it is only a drafting or merely a minor point, but it has been changed in the motion which is better than the way in which it appears in the programme for Government.

Senator Dan Boyle

Would that weaken the legislation?

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Deputy Martin Mansergh)

I am pleased to respond to the motion on behalf of the Government. I congratulate Senator Boyle and the Green Party Senators for tabling it and also every Senator who has contributed to the debate. Their contributions were excellent and highlighted some of the complexities and nuances of the issue.

The Civil Service code of standards and behaviour provides, inter alia, that civil servants who hold positions which are designated positions for the purposes of the Ethics Acts shall not, within 12 months of resigning or retiring from the service, accept an offer of appointment from an employer outside the Civil Service, or accept an engagement in a particular consultancy project where the nature of such appointment or engagement could lead to a conflict of interest, without first obtaining approval from the appropriate authority. In respect of staff below the grade of assistant secretary, the appropriate authority is the Secretary General or head of office and, in the case of staff at assistant secretary or above, the outside appointments board. The renewed programme for Government provides for the extension of the provisions of the code of conduct for civil servants to the wider public service.

In response to a written parliamentary question from Deputy Gilmore on 8 December 2009 the Minister for Finance indicated he was "taking steps to ensure the work on the extension of the Civil Service provisions is advanced in each sector" and that the work would include consultations with the appropriate stakeholders, as provided for in the enabling legislation.

Before responding to the motion proper, I will outline for the benefit of the Members of this House the significant progress that has been made in promulgating codes of standards and behaviour in recent years across the public sector. A code of standards and behaviour for the Civil Service, pursuant to section 10(3) of the Standards in Public Office Act 2001, was drawn up and promulgated by the Minister for Finance on 9 September 2004. A code of conduct for councillors was published by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in June 2004 under the Local Government Act 2001. A code of conduct for local authority employees was published by the same Department in January 2007 under the Local Government Act of 2001. A code of standards and behaviour was published by the Health Service Executive in June 2009. A code of conduct for the guidance of Members of Dáil Éireann, other than officeholders, was adopted by Dáil Éireann on 28 February 2002. A code of conduct for Members of Seanad Éireann, other than officeholders, was adopted by Seanad Éireann on 18 April 2002. A code of conduct for the guidance of officeholders was published by the Standards in Public Office Commission in July 2003. A declaration of professional values and ethical standards is in place for the Garda Síochána which provides a professional framework for the guidance and direction of all staff. A statutory based code of ethics for the Garda Síochána is in the final stages of preparation.

In addition to these codes, the Department of Finance updated its long-standing code of practice for the governance of State bodies in July 2009. I am pleased to inform the House that work on the extension of a code of a similar standard to the code of standards and behaviour for civil servants to the remaining areas of the public sector is at an advanced stage. Preparations are being made to initiate a consultation process with the relevant staff interests on the draft code of standards and behaviour for public servants in the very near future. It is expected the draft code will be circulated to all Departments in the coming weeks.

The provisions of the proposed code of standards and behaviour for public servants in the wider public sector will broadly reflect those set out for the Civil Service, including the rules applicable to officers designated under the Ethics Acts relating to outside employment following resignation or retirement. The initial scope of the draft code will include all public entities and bodies not already covered by an existing code other than the commercial State-sponsored bodies which are subject to the code of practice for the governance of State bodies issued by the Department of Finance.

We are all aware that the potential for a conflict of interest arises for public servants who propose to accept positions or engage in consultancy projects outside the public service following resignation or retirement. With regard to the specifics of the motion before the House, the proposed new code will make it obligatory for all serving public servants to declare any potential conflicts of interest in order to avoid any suspicion that the advice and decisions of a serving public servant might be influenced by the expectation of future employment or consultancy projects with a particular firm or organisation. Furthermore, it will oblige all public bodies covered by the code to monitor the acceptance of outside appointments by public servants resigning or retiring from the particular public body.

The proposed new code will also provide that public servants who hold positions which are designated positions for purposes of the Ethics Acts shall not, within 12 months of resigning or retiring from the service, accept an offer of appointment from an employer outside the public service or accept an engagement in a particular consultancy project where the nature and terms of such appointment or engagement could lead to a conflict of interest without first obtaining approval from the appropriate authority. Furthermore, even where the 12 month moratorium has elapsed, or where for other reasons approval is not required before taking up outside employment, the code will make it obligatory for such public servants to continue to observe the restrictions imposed by the Official Secrets Act 1963, as amended.

These rules will apply also to public servants in grades below the pay level of designated officers who, although not serving in a designated post at the time of their retirement-resignation, have served in such a post at any stage during the six months prior to their retirement or resignation. In such cases the 12 month period in which these rules apply will be reckoned from the officer's last day in the designated post.

The proposed new code will provide that any public servants who intend to be engaged in or connected with any outside business or hold designated positions under the Ethics Acts must make their applications in the following ways. Officers below grades analogous to assistant secretary level in the Civil Service must apply to the head of the public body in which they are serving or last served before retirement or resignation. Officers at and above grades analogous to assistant secretary level in the Civil Service will be brought within the ambit of provisions identical to those applied by the outside appointments board. I emphasise that it is not the intention to place an unnecessary burden on public servants in moving to the private sector. A mutual transfer of know-how, expertise, competence and experience between the public and private spheres is highly desirable, but protection of the pubic interest is a legitimate and, for the Government, an overriding concern. It is also expected the provisions in this area will not affect the generality of former public servants joining outside employment.

I will briefly comment on the role of the outside appointments board. The board was established under the Civil Service code of standards and behaviour as drawn up and promulgated by the Minister for Finance on 9 September 2004 pursuant to section 10(3)of the Standards in Public Office Act 2001 and published by the Standards in Public Office Commission in December 2004 pursuant to section 10(11) of the Standards in Public Office Act 2001. The board consists of the Secretary General, public service management and development, Department of Finance; the Secretary General to the Government and three other members who are not civil servants, one of whom acts as chairperson of the board. The board is mandated to maintain public trust in the Civil Service by independent scrutiny of post-employment appointments that senior civil servants propose to take up within one year of resigning or retiring from the Civil Service.

The objective of the board is to provide an open and transparent system of oversight of such proposed appointments that will protect the public interest without placing undue barriers in the way of movement of people with experience and expertise between the public and private sectors. The code directs the board to reach decisions on applications before it on the basis of whether there is a clear conflict of interests. The board may approve the application or apply conditions to its approval. It is responsible for approving applications from civil servants who, upon resigning or retiring from the Civil Service, propose to accept an offer of appointment from an employer outside the Civil Service or an engagement in a particular consultancy project "where the nature and terms of such appointment or engagement could lead to a conflict of interest". The small number of cases processed by the outside appointments board since its establishment illustrates that the numbers of retiring civil servants moving to a job in the private sector which has similar attributes to the public sector job they are leaving is very small. For the future, all officers employed in the non-commercial State sector will be brought within the ambit of provisions identical to those applied by the outside appointments board.

Senators will readily appreciate and many have acknowledged that the public service plays an important and often critical role in virtually every facet of life in Ireland. The provision of public services and the conduct and behaviour of all public servants are critical and it is important that their actions and decisions are informed at all times by the principles of integrity, impartiality, effectiveness, equity and accountability. The proposed code will give statutory effect to these fundamental guiding principles for public servants. It will be promulgated pursuant to section 10(3) of the Standards in Public Office Act 2001.

The proposed code is designed to extend provisions of a similar standard to those contained in the Civil Service code of standards and behaviour to those parts of the wider public service not already covered by statutory codes. It will also complement similar codes already in place in the local government, health and other sectors. The introduction of this code will bring the public service within a systematic comprehensive, consistent and complementary code of standards and behaviour for the first time. The code sets out a transparent framework within which public servants must work and in a single document, it sets out the principles which govern the behaviour of public servants and the values which the public service espouses.

The code builds on the principles set out in The Ombudsman's Guide to Standards of Best Practice for Public Servants and mirrors the main elements of the model code of behaviour adopted by the Group of States against Corruption, GRECO. It also makes it clear that it is primarily a matter of individual responsibility, which was strongly stressed by Senator White in his contribution, for each public servant to ensure his or her actions, in the performance of duties, meet the highest standards of ethics and probity set out in the code.

The code is not intended to be an exhaustive list of guidelines for all possible eventualities. It therefore permits individual public bodies to provide additional guidance, as appropriate, for their own staff relevant to their own circumstances. It is proposed that the provisions of the code will apply on a mandatory basis to public servants other than those falling within the ambit of a sectoral code published in accordance with the provisions of a specific legislative requirement. In the case of any agency where the publication of a code is subject to a statutory requirement, the provisions of the proposed code shall apply until such time as publication occurs in accordance with the relevant legislation.

The draft code will be divided into three main parts. Part one covers the standards underpinning public service, part two obliges public servants to observe appropriate behaviour at work, and part three requires each public servant to maintain the highest standards of probity. The provisions concerning standards underpinning public service will, inter alia, require public servants to operate within the framework of the law and, in the performance of their official duties, to serve the public conscientiously, honestly and impartially; advise on and implement policy impartially; and avoid bias in their dealings with the public. It reiterates the rules governing public servants and politics, disclosure of information and the provisions which apply in the event of a public servant being convicted of a criminal offence.

Not only are the highest standards required in observing the law and dealing with the public but public servants will also be obliged under part two of the code to observe the highest standards in their behaviour at work. Specific requirements are laid down in regard to attendance at work, the use and care of public money and resources, relations with colleagues and personal dealings with the public body in which they serve. Part three of the proposed code covers each of the elements necessary to ensure the highest standards of integrity are maintained by public servants. It includes detailed provisions concerning a wide range of interrelated topics such as the use of influence, conflicts of interest, disclosure of conflicts of interest, rules governing gifts and hospitality, contracts and purchases from other public entities, compliance issues and the review and operation of the code.

Part three will also include the provisions outlined earlier in regard to the acceptance of outside appointments, the acceptance of consultancy engagements following resignation or retirement and the role of the outside appointments board. As indicated, the Government is committed to fully implementing the provisions applicable to civil servants on the acceptance by public servants of outside appointments, the acceptance by them of consultancy engagements following resignation or retirement, and the provisions covering the role of the outside appointments board.

The code of standards and behaviour for public servants will be modelled on and follow the layout and appearance of the Civil Service code of standards and behaviour. The code will reflect the differences in the operational environment between the Civil and public service, incorporate up-to-date relevant provisions included in other more recent codes, especially the local authority and HSE codes of standards and behaviours, and reflect the different regime applicable to public servants with regard to politics

Codes of corporate governance of the highest standard are in the course of being implemented across the commercial and non-commercial State sector. On 15 June 2009 the Department of Finance published a revised and updated version of the code of practice for the governance of State bodies. This code sets out the governance framework agreed by Government for the internal management and the internal and external reporting relationships of commercial and non-commercial State bodies. The code of practice provides a framework for the application of best practice in corporate governance. State bodies and their subsidiaries are required to confirm to the relevant Minister that they comply with the up-to-date requirements of the code of practice in their governance practices and procedures. The requirements of the code of practice are to be applied in all trading subsidiaries and, as appropriate, in joint ventures of the State bodies. Appropriate confirmation should be provided to the relevant Minister. The code of practice consists of a number of comprehensive sections dealing with the board and directors; the remuneration of senior management and director's fees; risk management, accountability, internal control and internal audit; relations with the Oireachtas and the Minister; and specific procedures to be followed by State bodies on matters such as the establishment of subsidiaries, acquisitions, procurement, capital investment appraisal, travel, disposal of assets, tax compliance and the handling of legal disputes.

I assure the House that, prior to promulgating the code of standards and behaviour for public servants, the Minister for Finance will ensure the necessary consultations take place with the Standards in Public Office Commission, the relevant Departments and the staff representatives of the employees in the public bodies concerned. I am delighted to report the strong and consistent progress being made by this Government in advancing significantly the adoption of the highest standards of behaviour, probity and corporate governance across the entire Civil and public service. Once the consultation process on the proposed code of standards and behaviour for public servants is complete, the Minister for Finance will formally seek the approval of the Government for its promulgation to the wider public service.

The original motion deals with public servants retiring or resigning and taking up employment in the private sector. The amendment, irrespective of its contents, makes the enormous leap to recruitment embargoes, capacity building and organisational and business development in the Department of Finance. Senator O'Toole made a very ingenious defence of the linkage between the amendment and the motion but there is a case for regarding them separately, although they may be connected.

The concerns of Senators will be brought to the attention of the Minister and considered in the light of the Department's ongoing examination of needs with regard to deficits, skills, capabilities and competencies identified by the Secretary General of the Department of Finance. The Minister for Finance is fully conscious of the need to reskill and upgrade the Department's capabilities to address current and future challenges and I assure the House that the Minister, Deputy Brian Lenihan, will not be found wanting.

I will take a couple of minutes to reply to one or two specific points made in the debate. Economists have been attached to Departments for a long time. Dr. Garrett FitzGerald may have introduced the practice as he had an economist attached to the Department of Foreign Affairs and several economists, although not at the same time, including the present Governor of the Central Bank, when he was Taoiseach. Both the present Taoiseach and Minister for Finance have economists as advisers.

As was pointed out in the course of the debate, there are specialist agencies such as the National Treasury Management Agency which have a particular bank of expertise. I attended the IMF on behalf of the country in October 2008 at the height of the international banking crisis. There are many economists attached to the Central Bank which is one of the primary bodies dealing with the subject.

I wonder if Senator O'Toole was speaking on behalf of public service unions when he suggested open competition for all promotions in the public service. I doubt it. Without having a closed mind on the topic, there has been a considerable opening of the process in the past 20 or 30 years. I would prefer the question of whether it would be wrong to get rid of the esprit de corps of the public service in that fashion to at least be debated before I could agree with the proposition.

Senator Ross asked about when knowledge goes out of date. I could not help but think that not every part of Government moves like greased lightning. As a civil servant in the late 1970s, I dealt with some issues that are still around or are only now being resolved. I share the Senator's scepticism. Often, knowledge is about how things work and techniques. We should not be too negative in this regard. As I stated, many people accept as a good idea the notion of private sector people entering the public sector for a while and acquiring some of the expertise of public servants. This could be dangerous in a few instances and a firewall would be necessary, but the code is not a blanket ban on moving into the private sector within one year. Rather, it is about a Secretary General or the outside appointments body addressing any serious questions.

Politicians were referred to, but this code only applies to a relatively small group, namely, current Ministers who move into the private sector. The same issues do not arise for backbenchers and Opposition politicians because everything they do and say is, broadly speaking, on the public record.

A Senator referred to a predecessor of mine but one in the Office of Public Works. To the best of my recollection, I have had no approaches of any kind in respect of a project or work in which the Department would be involved. There may be issues relating to the papers or personal records of all ex-Ministers who are in touch with private offices. I have attended one dinner hosted by the Construction Industry Federation, CIF, and I am sure other Ministers have attended from time to time, but I assure the House that I am unaware of any conflict of interest arising in practice. There was a gap between the president of the CIF leaving his ministerial job and taking up his current office.

A point was made about councillors, companies and conferences. Many conferences would not survive without councillor input, so my view is positive. On the other hand, I have never liked the practice of one or two councillors, to put it diplomatically, arriving, signing on, departing after five minutes, collecting travel expenses and not being seen again. A tightening up is required.

Reference was made to disgraceful changes to the Freedom of Information Act. A matter that rarely enters public debate is the fact that some freedom of information requests, mostly from the media, require several civil servants to spend a considerable amount of time trawling through documentation, often for the benefit of a commercial organisation like a newspaper. They might send reams of documents but nothing gets printed thereafter. People ought to be aware there are costs.

A number of ex-planners are recruited for An Bord Pleanála because they have expertise. Many planners, especially in the boom years, left the public service because they could earn more money in the private sector. Obviously, they brought with them their techniques and expertise, but the majority did not bring inside knowledge of particular projects. In other words, they were not gamekeepers turned poachers.

We must consider the positives. We can be defensive and perhaps there are reasons and controversies that require us to be cautious and to insert precautions. I am supportive of the programme for Government and this motion, but one must also consider the positive cross-fertilisation between the public and private sectors. In the majority of instances, this can be to the benefit of everyone.

Senator Paddy Burke

I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on this motion. I also welcome the Minister of State to the House.

This motion is unworkable. We are blowing something up unnecessarily high. The code of practice consists of a number of comprehensive sections on boards of directors, remuneration, senior management, directors' fees, risk management, accountability, internal control, internal audit and so forth. Is there this much of a conflict of interest for public servants who move into the private sector? To phrase it bluntly, we are putting the cart before the horse.

I remember when declarations of interest were first introduced in respect of Members of both Houses. It was initially proposed that Members would declare all of their interests, a list of which would be held in the Houses or elsewhere, and that a committee would be established in the Dáil and another in the Seanad to determine whether a Member had a conflict. As events turned out, everyone's declaration was made public. I will not say whether this was a good or bad idea.

Nowadays county manager contracts only last seven years. Someone could finish his or her term as a county manager, move into the private sector and still be in his or her 40s. A job might come up. Is the Government honestly saying that job should be put on hold for 12 months before the manager could take it? If a job is advertised and a county manager, planning official or someone in procurement — the areas in which I presume most conflict exists — applies for it on the spur of the moment because he or she wants to leave the public service, is he or she going to ask the other employer to hold the job for 12 months?

As Senator Alex White asked, who decides there is a conflict? The manager or whoever would need to apply to see whether there was a conflict. I presume there would be none in most cases. I recommend a board to investigate potential conflicts of interest subsequently. If it finds a conflict, a portion of the person's lump sum payment or pension should be withheld.

It is in this way that punishment should be meted out. A punishment should be imposed but this should take place after the fact. I cannot understand why we should try to oblige someone who wishes to leave the public service and take up a position in the private sector to wait 12 months to do so. That is how I interpret the motion but perhaps I am wrong.

Senator Ó Brolcháin referred to councillors. I do not believe that councillors are claiming expenses in respect of conferences they do not attend. The majority of councillors attend conferences to obtain information for their personal gain and for that of the counties and local authorities they represent. At such conferences they obtain a valuable insight into how things operate in local authorities in other countries, etc.

Senator Niall Ó Brolcháin

The Senator is being somewhat naive in respect of that matter.

Senator Paddy Burke

I do not believe that is the case. I am of the view that people do not claim expenses in respect of conferences they do not attend.

I must inquire again as to who will decide that a conflict of interest has occurred. When it has been established that such a conflict has arisen, some punishment should be meted out. This can only be done after the fact. We should not investigate every person who wishes to leave the public service and take up a position in the private sector. Only when it has been decided that a conflict of interest has arisen should an investigation take place and a punishment be imposed.

Senator Dan Boyle

I thank Senators Twomey, O'Toole, Ross, Alex White, Mary White, Ó Brolcháin, Dearey and Burke for their contributions. I particularly thank Senator Burke for inserting a number of different viewpoints into the debate.

In general, the tenor the debate was supportive of the motion as tabled. There was a recognition that potential difficulties exist and an acceptance that this is a matter in respect of which reform is needed. Where criticisms were made, they were on the grounds that the motion was either inadequate or was too much of a precursor to the legislation that is to be introduced.

Extraneous matters relating to areas where reform may be required, for example, in respect of freedom of information, were also introduced to the debate. The motion is narrowly focused, however, to highlight something in respect of which agreement was reached and a commitment made and which will be brought into being. The purpose of this debate was to give Members the opportunity to inform the process relating to the drafting of the forthcoming legislation. This will ensure we will end up with the best possible Bill.

I thank the Minister of State for his contribution. He outlined the work that continues to be done to upgrade the various codes and standards of behaviour relating to all aspects of public life.

This debate had a number of secondary purposes, such as highlighting the fact that the extremely good codes that exist in respect of civil servants should also apply to public servants. There are areas of compromise in respect of which better legislation is required. An good argument was made in respect of the need to extend the new legislation to holders of elected public office and I am of the view that this will influence the legislation that will eventually emerge. Various views were expressed in that regard, particularly in respect of whether the legislation should apply to everyone in public life or, as the Minister of State indicated, specifically to holders of elected public office. I would support the latter option because it is the expertise and specialist knowledge that can be obtained and which gives rise to the possibility of getting oneself into a compromising situation subsequently which should be taken into consideration when framing the legislation.

I listened carefully to what the Minister of State said in respect of the amendment. I accept that it comes from a different perspective and highlights a difficulty that exists in respect of recruitment. It refers to how we might involve people with expertise who have been in the employ of the public service or who could add to the expertise of the public service. I do not believe any Member argued against this happening. The Minister of State also placed on record the fact that the Minister for Finance is aware of the need to be proactive to ensure that any gaps that exist will be identified and will subsequently be filled and that there should be no impediments in this regard.

I have no wish to divide the House on this matter. The amendment, which is not especially compatible with the overall motion, seems to call for a subsequent statement on how the matters to which I refer might be dealt with and on how the Minister for Finance intends to respond to the concerns that exist. The Minister of State indicated that the Minister intends to respond in respect of this matter. In that context, there is nothing contentious in what has been said here and I am of the view that this matter is worthy of further debate.

I thank all Senators who contributed to the debate. They have assisted in highlighting this matter to a much greater extent. There is a broad consensus that improvement is required in this area, particularly in the context of public standards. It is my view that this debate will add to that improvement.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

When is it proposed to sit again?

Senator Dan Boyle

Ag 10.30 maidin amárach.