Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 17 July 2012
1Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if there were any retired officials in his Department re-employed even on a short term basis; if so, the reasons for same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25060/12]
Amharc ar fhreagra2Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if his Department has re-employed any retired civil servants; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30544/12]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
No retired civil servants have been re-employed by my Department. One person who previously retired from a different part of the public service is employed in an unestablished position by my Department. The employment contract of the person concerned will cease when my term of office as Taoiseach ends.
I accept the Taoiseach's reply. Does he accept there is a broad principle across the public service that, where possible, those who have retired should not be re-employed and that opportunities should be given to younger people and those seeking jobs for the first time to gain experience and opportunities?
I do, of course, accept that principle. It is only right and proper that where young people have the qualifications and the opportunity, they should be given it. Information received by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform shows the number of re-engagements of retired civil servants at 850 for 2010, 767 for 2011, and 70 for 2012. In implementing the principle that I stand by, that should happen where it is possible. Deputy Martin will understand that some retired public servants have a particular specialty and they are often brought back on a specific contract, as distinct from being employed again on the basis of having retired and drawing a pension. I accept the principle and, in so far as we can, we implement it.
I raised previously the issue in the context of the health service that those who have been re-employed on contracts have arrangements that allow them not to pay tax in this country. I refer to arrangements that allowed them to operate companies in the United Kingdom from which their services were then provided for the Minister for Health. This pertains to the advisers who had been recruited. It was reported some time ago in The Sunday Business Post - I raised this issue with the Taoiseach - that people were being employed as advisers to the Minister for Health but through companies located in the United Kingdom and that in consequence they, apparently, were legally avoiding the necessity to pay tax in this country. This causes difficulties in terms of-----
There may be a slight difference in this regard. The persons employed by the Minister for Health have a specific competence and expertise and are employed not as advisers but as consultants to the special delivery unit.
They were called "advisers" originally.
In addition, during a previous Question Time, I made the point to the Deputy that last January, before the exit from the public service took place at the end of February, the Government had made arrangements, for instance, in respect of leaving and junior certificate examination classes. Because of the bond between teachers and pupils, those teachers who had chosen to leave the public service at the end of February were able to be re-employed until the aforementioned classes completed their examinations.
That was practical.
For the Deputy's information, 254 such teachers retired during that grace period and were re-engaged in secondary schools because of that bond and for that purpose.
I welcome the Taoiseach's statement and consider it to be progress that the figures for retired public servants who have been re-employed in State employment have been decreasing. However, a figure of 850 still constitutes 850 too many, given current unemployment rates. I note that it was revealed last week that rules aimed at curtailing the amounts retired public service staff could earn if they returned to State employment were not applied if such individuals' services were provided through employment agencies. Is this the case and does it affect, for example, the single person employed in the Taoiseach's Department? Is the introduction of rules to prevent this from recurring planned or anticipated?
The principle is that when public servants retire, the opportunity to take up that employment should be given to younger people. The person employed in my Department worked in the Defence Forces for a period and was not at the normal retirement age. The person concerned is employed in an unestablished position in my Department and that contract will end when my contract as Taoiseach ends.
