Public Service Management (Recruitment and Appointments)(Amendement) Bill 2013

26th September 2013 - Bernard Durkan TD

I echo the sentiments expressed by Deputy O’Donovan. We hear much about democracy and the need for democratic systems and institutions. It behoves those of us who have been democratically elected to this or any other House to use its procedures to the best of our ability. Not doing so is a failure to do so on the part of those elected for that purpose. I have heard calls for a people’s assembly, but this is the people’s assembly. The Upper House is another part of it. For those who wish to debate and express their views, this is the place to do it.

Like Deputy O’Donovan, I congratulate the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform on his achievements in an appalling situation. Last night, I attended a meeting called by the INTO at which it discussed the various cuts affecting the teaching profession and schools. Those present acknowledged the fact that significant difficulties were facing all Ministers, none more so than the Minister for Education and Skills, and that certain actions needed to be taken in light of the prevailing situation.

I compliment the Minister, Deputy Howlin. Along with his colleague, the Minister for Finance, he has been willing to deal with the difficult task they were handed in what seemed like impossible circumstances. There was denigration from all quarters inside and beyond this country to such an extent that lesser people would have folded. Full recognition and congratulations should be afforded the Ministers. This is not an empty compliment; it is fully intended.

Public service recruitment and appointments have taken up some of our time previously. We last had a major review in 2004, when I spoke against the proposal on the basis that it politicised the public sector. The public appointments commission had prevailed to that point. It was “reformed” – that was the allegation – in a way that politicised it. That did not work.

The Bill before us is reforming, important and useful, and we should not forget its intention, that being, to create a certain amount of mobility. In our current circumstances, it is necessary that deployment be facilitated within the public sector. I acknowledge the significant work undertaken by the public sector. I am not a public sector basher, as the Acting Chairman knows. I have believed for years that, without a good, strong public service, we would not be able to survive. It is due to the strength of the public service that important strides have been made in recent years. For example, it is necessary that the Department of Social Protection be in a position to recruit people from within the public sector to meet the workload thrust upon it as a result of high unemployment levels. Otherwise, the entire system would have come to a halt, as 400,000 unemployed people could not be dealt with by the Department had it the same number of staff as previously. This situation did not result from anything that the incoming Government did but from what unfolded before it entered into office. The situation needed to be addressed.

The Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Burton, has done a good job in appalling and challenging circumstances. Every effort has been made to deliver services to a public that has been under increasing pressure. Congratulations are merited.

The public sector is being caused a problem by the ever-increasing magnitude of bureaucracy. This is challenging. An application form for anything consists of reams of questions, which are computerised at a later stage. Various boxes must be ticked and someone must be paid to assess them. For example, a local authority housing application consists of approximately 25 pages. It takes six months to evaluate whether the applicant is entitled to be put on the housing list. Notwithstanding that, the person in question has an entitlement under the Housing Act 1966 to have his or her housing need predominate other considerations. This is not a matter for the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. Rather, it is an example of how the bureaucracy has developed to such an extent that hordes of people must be detailed to determine outcomes.

I remember the 1980s, when two officials in my local authority handled up to 400 loans and the building of 400 houses per annum. This puts what happens today in perspective. They did their work quickly and without computers or other modern technologies. They used old typewriters, made carbon copies, etc. They were very effective and met the challenges of the time. They administered their office in a way that was community friendly.

Bureaucracy has evolved to such an extent that the process is almost impossible. It takes approximately six months to make a determination on an application for a local authority loan. It must be assessed locally, reams of correspondence must be submitted to the local authority and various boxes must be ticked, placing a burden and cost on the public sector. The application is then referred to a credit committee of the local authority, then to a credit authority at a central location. This level of bureaucracy is unnecessary. The process can be simplified. This point must be borne in mind.

Regarding public administration generally, my colleague, Deputy Catherine Murphy, referred to the need for greater deployments of public sector employees to handle larger populations. This is usually, but not always, the case. We all remember an example from the early 1980s. Comparisons used to be made with Greater Manchester, which had a similar population to Ireland. It was deemed that a single health authority was the ideal method of health administration for a population of that size, including in this country. That was wrong. There is a significant difference between the two areas’ geographical spread. Administering services in an area that is 200 miles by 150 miles or whatever the case may be differs from administering services in an area that is 20 miles by 20 miles. If I travelled 100 miles west from the part of the country where I was born in north-east Mayo by the Sligo border, I would still be in County Mayo. If I travelled more than 100 miles east, I would be here. One cannot necessarily compare the two. One must have due regard for and balance geography and demographics.

We have all dealt with situations in this House whereby public servants wish to be redeployed, but due to the archaic system that was previously applied they could not be. I have come across situations where some public sector employees have had to travel up to 150 miles a day to and from work. They could fill similar positions in their own local areas which were filled by others who were anxious to be redeployed elsewhere. I sincerely hope that under this legislation it will be possible for those kind of issues to be resolved seamlessly and without contention. That would ensure the requirements of individual public servants are borne in mind, and met, to the greatest extent possible. It should not be impossible to achieve that and it would not involve an abuse of the system. It simply recognises and acknowledges that it may be possible to provide a more efficient and effective service by creating less stress and trauma for those involved in the public sector.

That is particularly important at this juncture when people may have many competing demands, including mortgages and other increased costs. Those are the demands facing families at present. The proposed legislation will hopefully address those issues.

Arguments have been already advanced on the merits of the public service versus the private sector. As the Minister will know, there is a great opportunity for us to recognise the merits of both sectors. In the current climate, we must rely on both sectors in their respective major roles. From past experience, we know there are horses for courses. In some areas, services are better delivered by the public sector while others are not. In other areas, such as transport, competition between public and private sectors is useful and constructive. It can result in a better deal for the public. All in all, however, our public services have done us proud over the years and have worked extremely hard. Perhaps the odd branch of the public sector does not live up to expectations, but the odd private sector enterprise may not shape up either.

By and large, we have a dedicated public sector which has had to bear a fairly substantial burden following cost cutting and general cutbacks. We must also recognise that this situation is not permanent and I believe that, at the end of the day, the public sector’s contribution will be recognised. In the course of this debate I hope there will be a recognition by all of the necessity to have an efficient and cost-effective public sector, which we do have. It is also important to recognise the need for change through redeployment and adapting to new circumstances. That is already being done, however. By regularly re-examining the current situation we can modernise and adapt accordingly.

I reject the notion that in the modern era we must increase the level of bureaucracy to implement controls. In the past, centralised control mechanisms have not worked worldwide. When they should have reacted they did not do so. When controls were allegedly in place that should have ensured the safety of our economic situation – not only in this country but globally – they did not work. People were charged with such responsibilities, yet they did not fulfil them. Sadly, the rest of our population, and the international community, paid the price for it.

When the system fails we should ask whether it was those involved or the system itself that failed. Modernisation and new rules are required where new challenges present themselves. We must be prepared to respond to such situations for the greater good as well as achieving greater efficiency and operating within the guidelines laid down by the troika and international financiers.

As time goes by, we must show that we have become more effective and efficient in achieving targets. We have all been charged with the responsibility of working longer hours for less. We have all accepted that as public representatives and public servants. As public representatives we represent the public and private sectors and have duties to both. Public servants also have a duty to the general public, albeit in a different context but contributing to the same thing – the effective and efficient delivery of services.

Our role and performance have a huge impact on what it costs to run the country in terms of borrowings. The issue that will be borne in mind, when these aspects are viewed from outside, is the degree to which we have managed to achieve an efficient delivery of services in line with democratic principles. If we recognise and observe those principles we will have achieved a great deal.

I hope this legislation will be effective in doing the job it was intended to do. I also hope it will continue the work that has been undertaken already by the Minister in difficult circumstances, and that it will achieve the success it deserves.

Bernard Durkan TD

Kildare North

Bernard J Durkan is the Fine Gael spokesperson on Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform. Originally from Killasser, Co Mayo,…

Public Service Management (Recruitment and Appointments)(Amendement) Bill 2013

Bernard Durkan TD

Related news

Sinn Féin reach new low exploiting Covid diagnosis in Dáil vote

Agency should be tasked with monitoring alleged price gouging by service providers – Durkan

Questions remain about National Lottery’s new 'must-win' prize game – Durkan