Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 5: To ask the Minister for Finance if he is planning to draw up guidelines to provide training for public officials with regard to reporting corruption; and if adequate protection to public officials who act as whistleblowers, as recommended by the GRECO group of the Council of Europe, will be provided. [12411/06]

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As the Deputy is aware, the GRECO initiative, the group of states against corruption, is a body set up under the aegis of the Council of Europe to monitor and evaluate measures against corruption in member states.

A recent evaluation recommended that Ireland should introduce guidelines and training for public officials about reporting instances of corruption, or suspicions of corruption, which they come across in carrying out their duty. It also recommended establishing protections for public officials who make such reports.

Ireland already has extensive legislation to deal with standards in public life, including corruption. Provisions are contained principally in the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889, the Prevention of Corruption Acts of 1906 and 1916, the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995 in relation to registrable interests, and the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2001. Collectively, this legislation makes illegal all forms of active and passive corruption in both the public and private sectors. I also refer to section 5 of the Standards in Public Office Act 2001 that provides protection against dismissal in certain circumstances where a person makes a complaint in good faith to the Standards in Public Office Commission.

In the Civil Service, for which I have particular responsibility, there are special measures in place on the prevention of corruption. There are clear guidelines for civil servants on the standards of behaviour expected. A new and modernised Civil Service Code of Standards and Behaviour was drawn up in consultation with the staff side and issued to all civil servants in 2004. The code requires, in the public interest, the highest standards from staff at all levels in their dealings with the public and in handling public funds and property. Adherence to the standards laid out in the code is a term of employment of all civil servants.

The code was introduced in compliance with section 10(3) of the Standards in Public Office Act 2001 and therefore has a clear statutory basis. My Department is preparing a series of special courses on the code of standards and behaviour. I understand that the code is included as part of the induction courses for new staff held by Departments and offices.

Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I hope interference devices are not part of that code of practice. The Minister has not responded to my question. The GRECO group, the group of states against corruption in the Council of Europe, came into being because Ireland was one of the 14 countries which signed its ratification and, as a founder member, we should seriously consider its recent evaluation report. Apart from referring to the need for clear rules and guidelines for training public officials, the Minister has not commented on whether such training exists.

The report calls for more adequate protection for public officials who act as whistleblowers when they discover corruption. The group is calling for that protection and implies that it does not exist. GRECO points out that, in principle, nothing prevents a public official from reporting incidents of corruption to a superior, the Standards in Public Office Commission or to the Garda, as the Minister stated, but there is no legal obligation——

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not in order for the Deputy to read a quote during Question Time.

Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not quoting specifically but rather paraphrasing what is stated in the report. What I said was not a quotation. I am pointing out to the Minister the recommendations in the report. Will the Minister specifically comment on GRECO's recommendation that there is no legal obligation or ethical guidelines to encourage public officials to act on behalf of whistleblowers? The one act the Government seems to be taking to deal with whistleblowing legislation is to move a motion during next week's business to strike off the Order Paper the only legislative means currently before us to deal with the problem, namely, the Labour Party's Private Members' Bill. If the Government were serious about whistleblowing, it would either adopt the Labour Party Bill or introduce its own legislation and thereby put to rest the deceit that whistleblowing can only be dealt with on a Bill by Bill basis in terms of every position in the Civil Service.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Government has given considerable consideration to the issue. The Deputy will be aware that on 7 March my colleague, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, explained our approach in some detail in a speech on the Whistleblowers Protection Bill 1999, which was tabled by Deputy Rabbitte and to which the Deputy referred. The Minister outlined a number of the complex legal issues which would have to be addressed before taking further steps to introduce formalised whistleblowing or reporting procedures. For example, questions arise about the treatment of intellectual property rights or trade secrets which might be affected, the Official Secrets Act 1963 and its implications for civil servants, the number of protections that might be required under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 1993 for employees who whistle-blow reasonably and in good faith.

The Minister made clear the Government's decision to address the issue on a sectoral or case-by-case basis, that is, the possibility of including appropriate whistleblowing provisions would be examined on a case-by-case basis when individual Bills arise. This is the correct approach to adopt. The Minister also pointed to a number of Acts in which reporting procedures have been included.

I outlined the legislation in place already and referred to the provisions in the Standards in Public Office Act 2001 and the protections provided in this Act against dismissal in certain circumstances. We must be clear that the introduction of whistleblowing arrangements in the civil and public services would have to be carefully considered. In the Civil Service officials work to advise Ministers in Government on carrying out their decisions. To move quickly to a general system of whistleblowing or reporting on alleged wrongdoing or corruption could seriously undermine Departments or offices in carrying out their function on behalf of Government. It is one matter to consider a system designed to deal with wrongdoing or corruption but it is an entirely different matter to introduce a system which might in effect become a means of criticising Government decisions and policies. The introduction of formal whistleblowing procedures would be a major step the Government would have to consider very carefully.

The case-by-case approach outlined by my colleague, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, is the correct one. Under this approach, when legislation relating to the Civil Service is being considered we can examine the possibility of including well defined measures for appropriate reporting procedures in particular areas. It would, however, be wrong at this stage to give any general commitment as to what might be done.

The Deputy should also be aware that management systems in the Civil Service can address the issue of corruption. It is not only a question of relying on the legislation and codes of standards and behaviour. The Mullarkey report endorsed by Government made a number of recommendations aimed at strengthening internal control systems in Departments and offices and these are being implemented. For example, Departments and offices must have risk assessments and management systems in operation that are integrated in their management processes. Greater awareness of issues of risk will make management more aware of how to deal with reports of malpractice or corruption.

Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am surprised the Minister's main concern appears to be that legislating for whistleblowing on a broad basis would undermine Ministers' policies. This is a new argument. I find it hard to believe it is beyond the wit of parliamentary draughtsmen to draw up provisions that would provide for whistleblowing while ensuring they have no basis for undermining ministerial policies. Notwithstanding this, surely in the modern world freedom of information, transparency, declarations of interest and so forth — the Minister, for example, emphasised the need for transparency and accountability — are all designed to make public decisions more transparent and open to scrutiny. It is strange the Minister defends the decision not to introduce whistleblowing legislation on the grounds of wanting secrecy. Is it not the case that regulators are turning up breathless and late when problems arise, whether in the areas of nursing home standards, failures in computer systems, the planning system, banking etc? The list goes on and on yet the Government has chosen to perpetuate this system.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the Minister elaborate on the ethics and anti-corruption training available to civil servants? Do participants have an opportunity to study the reports published by the beef tribunal or Flood tribunal into planning corruption in the Dublin area? What precisely do civil servants study when taking part in this training? What is the position in the event that a civil servant becomes aware of a matter such as that investigated in Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda where a midwife trained outside the State was brave enough to pursue a wrong? This is the reason we want protection for whistleblowers who are often the only protection available for the public good and interest when an official system acts wrongly. The Minister's only concern is that a Minister might have a bad day out. This is an extraordinary response and I ask him to elaborate.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I did not make the response the Deputy describes and it is a misrepresentation to suggest I did. I simply made the point that one must consider the need to ensure the relationship between the Civil Service and Government is not compromised or undermined. I also noted that while it is one matter to consider a system designed to deal with wrongdoing or corruption, one also requires a means to ensure one does not have a generalised provision which could be used to change the essential relationship of trust and confidence between a Minister — a politician — and the Civil Service, the integrity and independence of the Civil Service is respected and maintained and the role of adviser and implementer of policy decisions is not compromised. The Government's argument is not that we should not have provisions but that we must carefully consider all these issues and deal with the matter on a sector by sector basis. A full articulation of the Government's position on the issue, as opposed to a misrepresentation of my comments, is best gauged and considered in the speech made by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment during the debate on the Labour Party Bill. That is my view on the matter.