Mr. William Beausang:

The approach taken in the general scheme corresponds to the type of approach the Deputy outlined. At present, there is a non-statutory board which assesses cases made by officials who are considering moving into the private sector as to whether an approval is needed for senior level staff. The outside appointments board has not seen many cases over recent years but the intention is always to identify where there may be a conflict of interest and introduce a safeguard that addresses the conflict rather than a blanket prohibition on somebody taking up a role. That approach is reflected in head 45, which refers to a scenario where somebody moves to a body with which they have had outside dealings or where there might be an unfair advantage conferred by the public servant moving there. There is a requirement to inform the outside appointments board and the board can either consent unconditionally to the person moving or design conditions to address specific conflict of interest risks that might arise. Countries that have tried to introduce blanket prohibitions found themselves having to pay gardening leave for a period because people have a constitutional right to work. Our legal assessment and our understanding from the Office of the Attorney General is that we cannot say to people that there will be a one-year or a two-year prohibition. It has to be proportionate and it has to be related to the risks. If we try to introduce a prohibition, we will be into a situation where somebody will have to be sent on administrative leave until the conflict of interest risk has eroded.