Amendment No. 49 has already been discussed with amendment No. 47.
SECTION 17.
I move amendment No. 49:
In page 21, subsection (2) (a), line 18, after "person in" to insert "or in relation to".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 17, as amended, stand part of the the Bill."
Will the Minister outline the purpose of this section as it relates to employees of public bodies?
The purpose of this section is to ensure that people in senior positions, which will be designated — it is envisaged that people of Principal Officer rank or above, those holding sensitive commercial positions or those in designated positions — would be required to make a similar confidential declaration of their interests as would be made in the case of directors of State companies.
What does the Minister mean by designated positions of employment? If a civil servant is appointed to the board of a semi-State company, would they then have to make a declaration?
That would come under section 16, because they are then regarded as directors. This section applies to senior civil and public servants being required, in positions that would be designated by the Minister for Finance, and in exceptional circumstances where people of more junior rank are in commercially sensitive positions — deciding on contracts, for example — to make declarations of interests.
I thought this section only applied to persons in employment in designated positions in public bodies?
A public body could be a Civil Service Department. The boards of State companies are dealt with in section 16. Section 17 is concerned with people who hold designated full time positions in public bodies or State companies.
Does this mean that civil servants from a certain rank upwards in ordinary Government Departments will now have to make a declaration of interests in the same way as those in semi-State companies? What is the thinking behind that?
There are people who are charged on all our behalf of working on the public's business and it is important to ensure that they are seen to be operating in their best interests. We ensure the separation of public and private business by these declarations of interests.
They will be sent to the relevant authority, which will be determined by the Minister for Finance. The relevant authority may be, but not necessarily, the commission. If it is not the commission, what does the Minister visualise will be the relevant authority?
I would envisage that the normal mechanism would be, for example, that senior civil servants in a Government Department would make their declarations to the secretary, the secretaries of Government Departments would make their declarations to the commission and the senior executives of State companies would make their declarations to the company secretary and these would be available to the commission.
To what grade of the Civil Service will this apply, or can it apply to all grades, depending on what the person is doing?
It is envisaged that it would apply as a matter of routine to people of principal officer rank and upwards. It would also apply, for example, to an assistant principal dealing with the awarding of contracts. They would be designated by the Minister for Finance because they would be working in a sensitive position.
Any other financial interests a civil servant might have would not usually be known by anybody in their Department. It is awful for a person being appointed to a semi-State company to have their business interests or involvements made known. Suppose that the relevant civil servant does not disclose a particular interest and it is found out subsequently through some means, what are the sanctions to be taken against that civil servant? Will it be a disciplinary matter as it relates to the rules of the Civil Service, or is it a separate matter altogether?
No, it is a disciplinary matter and it is being made a term of the contract of employment, so it will be dealt with under normal Civil Service disciplinary procedures with regard to breaches of a contract of employment.
Is this an addition to the terms of service of civil servants who are currently at the level of principal officer and upwards?
That is correct.
Has it been agreed with the Association of Higher Civil Servants?
The trade unions representing civil servants will be consulted in the normal way before this section will be brought into effect by order of the Minister.
I can see what the Minister is attempting, but is it not a form of insult to some of them? Those who serve in the Civil Service have the highest standards and the fact that they must make a declaration, albeit only to the Secretary of the Department, is a new imposition. Is such information for the use and benefit of the Secretary in that he may be aware that a principal officer has an interest in X, Y or Z? People come up the ranks of the Civil Service, and the Secretary of a Department may be aware that one of his principal officers has an outside interest and may wonder how it was acquired. Civil servants talk, like everybody else, they are no better or worse than politicians. They are more discreet than politicians, but they talk and when the relevant official is due for promotion, which is decided by his peers, this information could be significant, depending on the kind of person in possession of it. There may be a case for applying these provisions to politicians, semi-State companies, or outsiders appointed by semi-State companies but is it necessary to apply them to civil servants?
In the vast majority of cases the relevant authorities will see no returns, because most civil servants do not have outside interests which would be relevant. However, as a matter of good management practice, it is important that the Secretary of a Department would be aware when deploying senior staff if they hold sensitive interests. It is also important from the viewpoint of personnel management.
This section applies not only to the senior Civil Service, but to the semi-State companies and it is important that the public are assured that with regard to those working on a full time basis on their behalf in sensitive senior positions, public and private interests are kept separate. That is the reason for the section.
However, will deciding whether information about individuals may affect their decision-making not put more of a strain than necessary on the Secretary of a Government Department or the chief executive of a semi-State company? It is an unnecessary measure with regard to civil servants, whatever case one may make for the other categories covered in the Bill. I am aware that the Minister is seeking to make a level playing pitch for everybody — and I have no quibble with this — but it is not a good idea to put unnecessary measures into law.
I accept that in 90 per cent of cases it is not likely to be relevant as people will have nil returns. However, it is a precaution, because senior people are dealing with very significant amounts of public money, awarding contracts and so on. It is, therefore, important that the public are assured that these kind of mechanisms are in place.
Deputy McCreevy has covered most points, but I am a believer in the theory that if it aint broke, don't fix it. I accept that much of the Bill has been drafted for the purposes of public perception. People have been concerned about aspects of some public companies which the Minister mentioned earlier. However, there has never been any question about the behaviour of civil servants. The Minister advises that it is important to reassure people but nobody is looking for assurance or reassurance. Giving something which is not sought can sometimes have a negative effect.
Does this measure also apply to officials in local authorities and health boards? Will they be designated as civil servants?
Under the First Schedule to the Bill it is possible for the Minister for Finance to designate people such as officials of health boards and local authorities, or to designate those kinds of bodies as prescribed bodes under the Act. If they are prescribed bodies, it would be open to the Minister for Finance to designate senior positions, because people there would be handling road contracts, hospital contracts or such like involving many millions of pounds.
I accept much of what Deputy Ahern said, but the purpose of the section is to ensure that precautions are in place. While we have been well served by our public servants, if difficulties arose questions would be asked if there were no mechanisms in place and we are, therefore, inserting them as a precaution.
These provisions will apply to the grade of assistant principal officer and upwards. Is that correct?
The grade of principal officer and upwards.
Given this, an assistant principal officer, a senior staff officer — who is a Grade V — and a Grade VII in a local authority — who makes many key decisions — will not have to comply with the provisions. Is that correct?
It is envisaged that we will be able to extend the legislation to regulations covering local authorities, health boards and other such bodies. However, at present the Government has made no decision as to which officers in a local authority would be designated. The only decision, and it does not form part of the Bill, is that that with regard to the Civil Service, the provisions will apply to the grade of principal officer and above, and each grade in the local authority service, would be considered on their merits and with regard to the commercial sensitivity of their activities.
Will these grade then be included under regulations which may be made at some future time?
Yes. It will be a matter for regulations, which will be laid before the House.
Does this mean that the Bill may eventually apply to the grade of clerical typist and upwards?
No.
The Minister advises that the provisions apply to the grade of principal officer and upwards. In local authorities and health boards personnel at the position of Grade V and Grade VII make very important decisions. They are not included, if I read the Bill correctly and if I understand the Minister's explanation.
It will be for the Minister for Finance in conjunction with the Minister for the Environment to make regulations under the First Schedule to include local authorities. I envisage a process of consultaton involving the county manager, the Minister for the Environment, the local government union IMPACT and so on regarding what might be the appropriate designated positions. These would be sufficiently senior that section 17 would apply to them and particularly sensitive positions where people are involved, for example, in awarding contracts or handing public money where they would make sensitive commercial decisions in which potential conflicts of interest could arise if people had outside business interests.
The Bill is an enabling provision. It does not spell out what positions would be designated in local authorities. However, it is envisaged that the positions would be designated thorugh a process of consultation on a commonsense basis. It certainly is not envisaged that clerk typists not in commercially sensitive positions, would have to declare their interests. This would only apply to people in sensitive areas.
However, they can be included under the regulations which will be made with the approval of the Ministers for Finance and the Environment. Am I correct?
The Bill will be implemented in a common-sense way. The county manager would not want long lists of nil returns from the clerk typists, clerical officers and people in routine positions. While technically it would be possible to designate these positions, nobody will do that. This will be implemented in a common-sense way whereby people in sensitive positions will be asked to make declarations. That is required as a precaution.
Question put and agreed to.