Before Deputy Byrne leaves the House I would like to say that I find it rather ironic to hear him refer to the well known plight of the Irish horticultural industry and to read in this morning's newspapers the remarks of his leader, where he is reported as saying that he has had discussions with the leaders of the Libyan Government in an effort to encourage the importation of Libyan horticulture, in particular tomatoes and potatoes, into the Irish market. It seems to be rather at odds with the remarks and concern ostensibly expressed by Deputy Byrne.
Deputies will remember one of the more welcome and positive aspects of the last general election — the evident desire of the electorate that whatever Government was elected would, however drastically, deal with the chaos that had been allowed to develop in our public finances. Many economic commentators lent their not inconsiderable weight to the argument that unless action was taken quickly and decisively then Ireland would rapidly become economically and financially moribund.
It is one of the ironies of democracy, however, that when such expectations begin to be fulfilled — and, let it be said, fulfilled courageously — the people who spent most of their time in virulent condemnation of a spendthrift policy now turn their attention, and vehemence, on an administration that has begun the long and hard process of rectifying the damage caused by excessive borrowing and by an over-indulgence in the soft-option school of politics.
For some reason that I cannot fathom these people fail to recognise the inherent contradictions in their economic philosophy — if it is not a misuse of language to so describe their particular stance. Likewise they refuse to accept or be convinced of the fact that that well-recognised bonanza of Fianna Fáil Governments — the construction and maintenance, at taxpayers' expense, of gigantic white elephants — is at an end.
This budget represents, in conjunction with last year's budget, a carefully constructed strategy for recovery. I would like to dispel the notion that Government Ministers stuck their heels in the political water and having found the right temperature built their budgetary policy accordingly. That may well have been the norm some years ago, but it certainly is not the practice as far as this Government is concerned.
Despite the Opposition's claim to the contrary the Government did take account, careful account, of the prevailing economic trends. We did examine all the options, and the budget contains those options which we decided were realistic and practical in today's circumstances. The budget was designed to take account of a number of favourable factors and indicators. Last year, for the first time in several years, budgetary targets were met, and the balance of payments deficit reduced to manageable proportions whilst inflation fell sharply, though still at a level higher than is desirable and still markedly above that of many of our trading partners.
It is the Government's hope that a further fall in inflation can again be achieved and that the extremely successful volume increase in manufactured exports in 1983 can be repeated this year also. Indications are of a real rise in the economy of the Western world, stimulated in the main by the United States, and this is, I understand, reflecting itself in the order books of our exporting industries. This will be further helped by the budgetary proposals to give additional moneys to the Córas Tráchtála employment support scheme.
All of the economic forecasters have indicated a growth in our GNP of some 2 per cent this year, a few, indeed, even opting for a somewhat higher figure. It was surely important that, in that setting, the budget should recognise those favourable factors and help to set the climate which would allow the economy to perform as forecast, and, where possible, to stimulate that growth.
It should be remembered, for example, that the budget will have an effect of less than 1 per cent in the CPI — lower than any of the previous four. A broad range of encouragement to business and to industry has been provided, viz.—
tax reliefs for long-term venture capital in new enterprises;
a very substantial improvement in the tax provisions in relation to profit sharing;
a renewal of the corporation tax deduction in respect of additional employees;
an extension of the initial allowance for plant and machinery and initial and annual allowances for industrial buildings which were due to expire;
an extension of the industrial buildings provisions to laboratories used for analysis work in connection with mining and oil exploration;
an extension for a further three years of the allowances to encourage people to invest in the private sector in the construction of toll roads, bridges and multi-storey car-parks, which were due to expire on 31 March next;
abolition of the claw-back on stock relief once granted;
a new system of stock relief on the basis of the opening stock shown on the accounts;
and a reduction of VAT on concrete from 23 per cent to 5 per cent from 1 March next.
Capital moneys, additional to the capital estimates, and all of which will provide extra real employment, include:
£8 million for road improvements;
£3 million each on top of the amount available for housing through SDA loans and the Housing Finance Agency;
£2 million for the repair of primary schools;
and funds for two projects of significant importance to major provincial centres — the Ringaskiddy deep-water berth and Galway Airport.
The Opposition have chosen to present a picture of the Government as being devoid of a structured, planned view as to the tackling of the great task before us. Nothing could be further from the truth. Certainly, of necessity, much of the past year has been taken up in what I call crisis management; and the tackling of many of the inherited and overlengthy problems in State enterprises and other areas has occupied much of ministerial time. Other things have also been receiving attention and will, it is hoped, during 1984 indicate the Government's approach on a broad range of fronts.
The National Planning Board have been working on the production of their plan which is due within the next few months and this will be followed by the presentation of the Government's medium-term plan for the economy. In addition the Minister for Education has recently published the Government's four-year plan for education whilst the four-year plan for agriculture and the White Paper on Industrial Policy are before Government at present.
Apart from the changes which I refer to elsewhere in this speech I hope to present a White Paper on a Better Public Service in the coming months and the Minister for the Environment has undertaken a major review of the structure of Local Government in Ireland, as was referred to by the Minister of that Department yesterday. These and many other measures demonstrate clearly, I believe, that the Government are setting their minds to the task not just of the economic difficulties but also of reforming and modernising our institutions and structures. Of course, the overriding problem now presenting itself is the spectre of unemployment. We must, all of us, bend our minds and our attention towards alleviating a disease which is not, by any means, peculiarly Irish, although its manifestations have bedevilled this country longer, and now more acutely, than in the case of many of our neighbours.
We must, and again I say all of us, employer, employee and Government, face up to the real possibility that much of today's unemployment is due to reasons different from those historically given; that perhaps society is undergoing massive structural change; that accepted values — and expectations — can no longer be assumed necessarily as valid; that the development of the information society requires us to reassess, in a radical fashion, what we can expect to see delivered in some of the more traditional employment areas. Thus, just as a new entrant to the work force should expect to change careers — perhaps radically — two or three times during his working life, so too should our system, both educational and social, be required to equip that person for those major readjustments. Thus also total length of working life, type of job expectation, hours worked per week, job-sharing, profit sharing, overtime payments, ability to cross the career structure, re-training programmes, are just some of the areas which must be given fundamental examination by all of those interested in finding methods of providing the maximum amount of our people with employment.
There is an obligation upon all of us, employee representative just as employer, to face up to these prospects and to realise that those with a steady income are now the fortunate; that rather than constantly seek to improve their position they must now join in looking to how they can share that fortunate position with the sons and daughters — whether their own or their neighbours' — who have never known employment.
That is not an easy thing to ask of people — all of whom have a traditionally legitimate expectation of improving their position and that of their family. We really must ask, however, for how long more we can expect to see our personal lot improve while the unemployment queues grow, while the State is faced with increasing demands for compensation. Is it too outrageous to suggest that, for the next number of years, those at work should expect to see the real growth in the economy devoted to a real growth in the available number of jobs on offer; that the demands of the social partners — all of them — should not be for more of the national cake for their members, but, instead that more be invited to participate in that cake?
Is it not a self-defeating exercise to complain at the, admittedly, over-high burden of taxation and yet demand wage settlements which drive more and more on to the dole — to be financed from that self same over high rate of personal taxation? What is the point in continually demanding extensions of Government services to our local communities — on the basis that they are "free", which is the most expensive word, in the context of Government, ever invented, when they too form a further burden on our own personal taxation pocket? Marry such arguments to the profligacy of Government between 1977 and 1981 which conceded all such demands in the mistaken belief of short-term political popularity and the repayments for whose borrowings now completes the grip on your personal taxation pocket. In that context one could be almost forgiven for thinking that we Irish have a tremendous propensity for shooting ourselves in the foot.
The Opposition have espoused the notion that the Cabinet Task Force on Employment has not been active in pursuing measures to combat unemployment and to provide initiatives which would lead to job opportunities, particularly for our young people. The task force have, in fact, been considering a wide range of measures aimed directly at reducing unemployment levels and providing much needed jobs for young people. As far as the public service is concerned such measures would be especially directed towards achieving a greater flexibility in working arrangements so that some employment can be re distributed, on a voluntary basis, to provide jobs for other people. I am happy therefore to be able to inform the House that the task force have decided on two new schemes which will provide these job opportunities in the Civil Service.
The first of these schemes provides for career breaks under which civil servants, in general, may be allowed to take special leave without pay for a period of not less than a year and not more than three years. All serving staff who avail of this scheme will be replaced by new appointees. At the end of the period of special leave returning staff will be allocated to vacancies as and when they arise.
While it is initially impossible to make a firm estimate, I confidently expect that a considerable number of civil servants will be interested in this scheme. There have been increasing pressures, for example, from staff interests for the granting of special unpaid leave for those interested in further education, for parents who wish to devote themselves for a period of rearing their children at home and for those who would like to set up a business. Indeed, this new scheme will allow people to opt for a career break for whatever reason they choose, unless their Department and mine feel them to be in a key and non-replaceable role. I have in addition asked my colleagues the Ministers for Education, Environment and Health to consider whether it would be feasible or desirable to introduce similar schemes in their areas and they are examining these possibilities at present. Full details of this new scheme will be made available following consultation with the staff interests concerned.
The second scheme, one of job-sharing, is being introduced in the Civil Service currently. Under this scheme certain staff can, on a voluntary basis, and in agreement with management, divide what is normally a full-time job into two, each person's terms of employment being normally pro rata with those of a full-time worker. Again resulting vacancies will be filled by new recruits.
Initial responses, prior to actual details being made available, indicated that some 400 serving staff in the Civil Service would be interested in participating in a scheme of this nature. Again, however, I am confident that when the scheme is fully operational many more will see the benefits of participation.
Like the scheme of career breaks this job-sharing scheme is deliberately aimed at providing job opportunities for young people and both have a similar target group, for example, persons with domestic or other responsibilities who will now have a choice of either taking a career break without pay or of sharing a job on half-pay. I should make it clear that some posts in the Civil Service will, in the course of the coming year, be advertised on the basis that they in turn will be job-sharing posts.
These two new developments must be seen in conjunction with the series of conclusions reached to date by the Government Task Force on Employment which included the announcement of the new enterprise allowance scheme, the arrangement to improve the co-ordination of agencies involved in the areas of training, work experience and placement and the provision of voluntary work for the unemployed agreed in July of last year, as well as the conclusions reached since then on the implementation of the recommendations of the first two reports of the sectoral development committee on the clothing and textiles and mechanical engineering industries, the wide-ranging remit given to the industrial cost monitoring group, the new developments in relation to profit sharing announced in the budget, the further development in connection with the enterprise allowance scheme and the capitalisation of pay-related benefits and elements of unemployment benefit for those wishing to set up their own businesses. I should also mention that to ensure that good ideas from within the public service at whatever level come to the fore, the Task Force on Employment have arranged that these ideas will be sought from public servants at all levels and processed through the task force.
I believe the response to date of the enterprise allowance scheme shows that there is considerable initiative and self-confidence amongst the unemployed and that they want to set up their own businesses. The initial scheme announced by the Minister in September last provided for a payment for up to one year of £30 per week to single people or £50 to married people who have been unemployed for more than 13 weeks and who wish to establish their own businesses. That scheme was on a pilot basis for 500 people in the first instance but it has been so successful that the task force agreed recently to remove the limit on numbers in the scheme. This will make it possible for a far greater number — possibly as many as 4,000 or 5,000 during this year — to benefit from the income safety net of the enterprise allowance scheme for up to 12 months. There is provision also in the scheme for the capitalisation of all or part of the economy allowances to enable those starting those jobs to purchase capital assets. The task force also recently agreed to provide the additional incentive for unemployed people who wish to start up in a business of their own by enabling them to have the pay-related element of the unemployment benefit due to them capitalised to help fund the new business starting up.
I hope that that range of initiatives already introduced, or being announced now by the task force, will help to dispel the lie that the task force have not been active in pursuing ways and means of providing real job opportunities within the economy. That is our task and that is what we will continue to do. The task force have been meeting on a regular basis and, indeed, are scheduled to meet later today. I hope that progressively over the next number of months a series of other options which we are examining will come to fruition and it will become apparent that real work and real jobs are being identified and provided through the activities of the Cabinet Task Force on Employment.
I should like to turn now to the question of public service and other pay. I am glad to say that the public service pay agreement which I negotiated with the Public Services Committee of ICTU, and which has since been implemented in every area covered by the agreement, has made a notable contribution to industrial peace. By and large it has been found possible to work out solutions, within the provisions of the agreement, to all difficulties that have arisen to date under that agreement. I freely acknowledge that the credit must go in large measure to the public service unions who negotiated the agreement and who have since given abundant evidence of their commitment to stand by it.
The agreement and, in particular, the manner of its implementation and its maintenance, did, therefore, set a good example for all to follow, whether in the public or the private sectors.
A commitment to implement such an agreement must, of course, cut both ways and I believe the unions' recognition that I and the Government were wholly committed to implementing and honouring any agreement that would be arrived at had a large part in the acceptance of the agreement by the public services committee in the first instance and, ultimately, by the unions represented by them.
I do not deny that the standard increases provided for under the agreement were greater than the Government would have wished, even though they fell some way short of the general level which applied in the private sector. There were also some cases in which higher rates of increase were provided for under agreements reached in the State body area, mainly as a result of Labour Court findings.
There is sometimes confusion as to the difference between the public service and the public sector. I should like to emphasise once again that the agreement negotiated last summer applied to the public service rather than to the public sector. For that reason I should like to clarify the Government's policy on these developments. We would have wished that the terms of the public service pay agreement would have applied throughout the wider public sector. Indeed, we would have preferred that these terms should not have been exceeded anywhere, whether in the public or private sector. In so far as it lay in the Government's power to take action in support of the terms of the PSPA they have done so, whether in relation to Government contracts or in guidelines to the National Prices Commission, and I have no apology to make for that fact.
It has been the Government's aim, in both the State sector and the private sector, to ensure as far as possible that neither the consumer nor the taxpayer should have to bear the cost of increases which management might concede in excess of the standard increases of the PSPA. I have said that I make no apology for the fact that the Government have, in so far as it lay in their power, endeavoured to maintain the standards set by the PSPA increases.
I will go further to say that it is the Government's duty, having decided on a pay policy which they consider vital for the country's economic wellbeing, to take the necessary steps to see that it is implemented and to guard against its being undermined. That is particularly the case in areas where the Government are seen to be, in effect, the employer. It is a case, as far as I am concerned, of "he who pays the piper..." and I believe that the community in general understand and respect the Government's stand.
In the general context of pay it is, perhaps, interesting to reflect for a moment on pay trends in some of our neighbouring countries who are not only our trading partners but also our trading competitors. In Holland, for example, the carryover agreement, covering 1983 and 1984, is estimated to provide for an average increase in pay rates in 1984 of 0.5 per cent, one half of one per cent. The opening claim by the engineering unions in West Germany is for a 3.3 per cent to 3.5 per cent increase in pay, plus a reduction in weekly hours. It is reported that the employers are unlikely to concede the demands for the reduced working week.
Pay in Belgium has been frozen by Royal Decree during last year and for all of 1984, other than existing agreed indexation arrangements, upon which certain limits were also placed. It is interesting to note that in those three countries inflation ran last year at 2.9 per cent, 2.6 per cent and 6 per cent respectively. Even with such restrictive attitudes to pay increases generally these countries also adopted a different stance with regard to the public sector. The Dutch Government now propose a 3 per cent reduction in public service pay, with negotiations on pay and reduced working hours during 1984-86 to commence shortly.
The 1984 West German budget provides for a freeze in civil service pay until April 1985. In addition no civil service job, whether at recruitment or promotion level, will be filled for a six-month period. In the Belgian public sector new recruits will be obliged to take a 20 per cent reduction in both pay and working hours during their first year in employment.
The present Irish public service pay agreement expires for the majority of public servants on 31 May 1984. As the Minister for Finance has already indicated, no further provision has been made for increases in public service pay rates in 1984. Under the 1983 PSPA, public servants already received increases which went beyond the limits set down in the Government's guidelines in March 1983 and which provided for amongst other increases an increase of 3.25 per cent from the beginning of February this year. That excess has contributed to a situation in which, as matters now stand, the Exchequer pay and pensions bill will be increased by 8.8 per cent in 1984. Given the state of the Exchequer finances, the already very heavy cost of public service pay and pensions, and the very favourable terms enjoyed by public servants as to security of employment, it is clear that there can be no real grounds for any expectation of a further pay round for public servants this year.
In the matter of public service pensions I should say that in the course of the pay negotiations last year I agreed that the first phase of the public service pay agreement would, in general, apply to public service pensions with effect from 1 September 1983. The practice, since 1974, has been to increase public service pensions on 1 July each year by reference to changes in the pay rates of serving officers within the previous 12 months. Thus increases to serving personnel were often paid months before their retired colleagues received any adjustment. For some time now retired public servants have been making a strong case for adjustments to be made in their pensions as and from the same date as public service pay increases. I am very pleased therefore that the Minister for Finance was able to announce full parity for these pensioners from the beginning of this month.
Parity for grade or special increases will be dealt with in the context of the next pay round and the new arrangements for such increases will then be implemented in 1985. Needless to say these commitments will have to be taken into account in costing any future pay claims in the public service.
Deputies will be aware that in the course of the past year I announced that the payment of disturbance allowances to public servants who are relocated in modern offices, often not very far away and sometimes nearer to their homes, could no longer be justified. I felt that it was unreasonable for those in secure, relatively well-paid jobs to seek compensation for moving to better premises. I decided therefore that such disturbance claims would not be met in the future, beginning on 1 January, 1984. In arriving at this decision I acknowledged publicly that Civil Service staff were by no means the front-runners in making claims for disturbance compensation and did so only when the practice had developed in the State-sponsored area and in the private sector.
A key objective of Goverment policy throughout 1984 will be the achievement of a more cost-effective public service. By the end of the seventies it was clear that the size of the public service had reached proportions which were extremely difficult to justify and which could not continue to be sustained from the scarce resources available. The large outlay involved was being seriously questioned by many sections of the tax-paying public and it was imperative that corrective action be taken.
Accordingly, this was one of the first areas to be given urgent attention by the Coalition Government when they took office in the middle of 1981. As an initial step towards achieving greater cost-effectiveness the Government decided that the numbers employed would not be allowed to exceed those actually serving on 21 July 1981. As a follow through of this policy, and in order to set about reducing numbers as quickly as possible to a level more in keeping with the capacity of the country to pay, restrictions on the filling of vacancies as they arose were announced with effect from December 1981.
This embargo has been in operation since that date and it has spanned the lifetime of three successive Governments. As stated in the budget, the embargo will continue during 1984 and will mean the non-filling of two out of every three vacancies arising in the civil service, and the application of measures of at least equivalent effect in terms of the number of posts which must remain unfilled, and their cost, in the non-commercial State-sponsored bodies, health agencies, the local authority area and the non-teaching staff in the education area. The numbers in the defence forces and in the Garda Síochána will be held at the levels obtaining in 1983.
The Government's objective of containing and reducing the overall size of the public service has been achieved so far. In the Civil Service, for example, the number serving on 21 July 1981 stood at 60,700. The effect of the embargo has been that 3,400 savings were achieved in the period up to the end of 1983. This was offset, to some extent, by the unfortunate fact that agreement was given for the recruitment of an appreciable number of extra staff in 1982 to man new and expanded services. The agreement has spanned the lifetime of three successive Government's but the vigour of the implementation of the embargo has varied depending which Government were in power. During 1982 an appreciable number of extra staff were sanctioned. Despite this, there has been a net saving of some 1,700 Civil Service posts over the period of the embargo.
Because of the necessarily haphazard way in which posts fall vacant, it can be argued that the current restrictions represent a crude method of reducing public service numbers. If however no other steps were being taken to ensure that the efficiency and the quality of essential services did not suffer, there would be validity in this criticism. We are constantly improving the organisation and work practices of the Civil Service so that the highest standards in delivering services will be maintained despite falling numbers. It gives me no great joy to have to implement the embargo provisions. I would be the first to admit that they are a crude and unscientific method of containing public service numbers. They do have one great merit however. They work — and have been seen to have worked over the past two years.
I accept that it would be far preferable if other methods which could ensure that key or sensitive posts were at all times filled, whilst having equivalent saving effects to the embargo, were in operation. It is my earnest hope that we can devise and implement a thorough and on-going review of schemes and programmes which could identify staff, as well as other, savings and which could then be used, in turn, through redeployment, to provide numbers in other more important areas.
We have, during the year, been able to accommodate the pressing staffing needs of certain areas by means of interdepartmental redeployment. The requirements, for example, of the Revenue Commissioners, of the Department of Social Welfare and, more recently, of the Department of Foreign Affairs in respect of the forthcoming EEC Presidency, and of the Oireachtas Committees were accommodated in this way without any departure from the strict guidelines of the embargo.
I should say at this point that a smaller public service certainly does not mean a weaker public service. I can assure the House that neither I nor any member of the Government want to see a weakened public service. On the contrary, all of the measures we have taken are part of a positive policy aimed at strengthening the public service, increasing its efficiency and effectiveness and making it a more interesting and rewarding place to work in terms of job satisfaction.
There can therefore be no doubt about the Government's commitment and resolve in this area. Nor can there be any doubt about my own personal conviction that a programme of radical change is essential if the public service is to respond vigorously and effectively to the many problems which face us at present and to the new problems which will emerge over the next decade.
As the first Minister with sole responsibility for the public service, I am deeply conscious of the responsibility I have to meet this challenge and to ensure that the organisation, management and operation of the public service, and of the Civil Service in particular, are such as to ensure the highest degree of cost-effectiveness and the provision of the best possible service to the public.
The Government's recent action in establishing an Appointments Committee for all top level Civil Service appointments and the associated guidelines relating to tenure of office by secretaries of Departments is, I believe, of the greatest importance in our programme of improving the public service. The new system sees a departure from promotions restricted by reference to various factors such as the Departments in which top civil servants happen to work, whether they are administrative or professional and their seniority, to promotions based solely on the criterion of finding the best person for each job as it arises.
The assessment of staff at the appropriate levels is in progress and will be used by the committee to assist them in their recommendations on the filling of any future vacancies. In speaking about this new Appointments Committee I am reminded of the statement of Thomas Jefferson to the effect that no duty the executive had to perform was so trying as to put the right man in the right place.
One of the most important aspects of the new appointments system at senior level is that it provides interdepartmental mobility. All of those eligible will now be entitled to indicate their interest in any or every senior position which falls vacant. Thus the total pool of talent within the service will, in turn, be available to be dipped into by the Appointments Committee. This is tremendously important.
I am convinced that there is a vast amount of talent and expertise available within the serving Civil Service. These changes will now mean that the full range of that talent is available for all posts to be filled and that those appointed will be based upon their expertise and actual performance. This should be an exciting development for the career prospects of many civil servants. They now know that they are to be considered for very many more positions than heretofore and that the consideration will be based on their monitored performance.
Surely this must provide incentive and encouragement for all of those who feel that they have an even greater contribution to offer and that they are good enough to serve at a higher level? From the viewpoints of career planning, job satisfaction, service-wide mobility, and the opening up of top posts for those heretofore excluded, such as professionals, this is the most important development in the senior echelons of the Irish Civil Service in over 60 years.
As I have already announced it is my intention during the coming months to place a draft White Paper before the Cabinet setting out specific proposals for further changes which are needed in the public service, and the action I intend to take to achieve those changes. An advertisement has recently been placed in the national newspapers inviting individuals or organisations who wish to have their views considered in the preparation of this White Paper to send their suggestions to my Department. Needless to say that invitation also extends to Members of the Oireachtas, to whom I have written previously asking for their observations. I take this opportunity of repeating in this House my desire that public representatives, both Members of this House and at other levels, would make their views known as to how we can set about the achievement of a better, more modern public service. I would welcome the views of Members on all sides in that regard. Some considerable progress has already been made in our programme of necessary improvements in the public service, some of which I have already referred to.
The House will be aware that the country's first Ombudsman took up office on 3 January last. I understand that in the short few weeks since that time he has been inundated with representations of one kind or another — a state of affairs which underlines as nothing else could the need for the office in the first place. The establishment of the Ombudsman's office provides the citizen with the opportunity of redress in cases where there is genuine grounds for grievance against bureaucracy.
I consider the appointment of the Ombudsman to be a significant step in providing the community with a better perspective and appreciation of the work of the public service. His office is not there to ferret out in some negative or vindictive way the ordinary and understandable human foibles which apply to civil servants as much as to any other section of the community. Rather is he there to ensure that the citizen gets a fair shake from the administration.
Some comment has been made as to the extent of the Ombudsman's remit. I have already given an undertaking that, once the office has operated for some months, together with the Ombudsman I would review the suitability of his present powers. I should like to assure the House once again that it will be my intention, in that review, to ensure that the Ombudsman has the widest possible powers which he considers desirable. No one should have any fear that I will, in any way, seek to frustrate the attainment of that goal.
One of the most important changes needed in the Civil Service is a realistic system of accountable management. I have said before that under our system of Government the Civil Service tends more towards advising Ministers and preparing legislation than at delivering and managing services on a large scale. This arises, in the main, from the concept of the Minister as the corporation sole. By its very definition, however, accountable management involves delegation of responsibility. The age-old tradition in the Civil Service of not embarrassing the Minister has led to an over-cautious approach to independent decision-making. Since it is, in theory, the Minister who takes all the decisions, it is easy to understand why many Civil Service managers see their priority as being to protect the Minister from public embarrassment and to satisfy him or her that they have acted correctly. Such a system however does nothing to make public servants feel personally responsible for the quality of the service they provide to the public or for the costs of providing it.
I believe, therefore, that it is desirable that there be greater accountability in the public service. I have already introduced a system of accountable management in my own Department as a prelude to its more widespread introduction throughout the Civil Service. Individual civil servants will now have to carry responsibility for their official actions. I believe that the vast majority of public servants will welcome a greater, and clearer, definition of their responsibilities.
Central to this system will be an annual Departmental plan which will pinpoint the results which each manager will be expected to achieve. There will be maximum delegation whereby individual civil servants will be responsible, personally, for the implementation of whatever area of Government policy they handle. One of the benefits of such a system will be that Ministers will no longer be snowed under with administrative details and can spend more time on policy formulation.
I am a firm believer in the concept of mobility not only within the public service, and the wider public sector but also between the public service and the private sector. Since I became Minister for the Public Service I have placed special emphasis on a scheme of job swops between these sectors, particularly job swops between the Civil Service and the private sector. This scheme affords both the private and public sectors an opportunity of exchanging staff who can only benefit from the experience of working in a different environment, under different work practices and with different people.
Last July the Government decided that, by the end of 1983, fifty-two civil servants would be exchanged temporarily with staff in other Departments, or the rest of the public sector or the private sector. Quotas were levied on Departments for this purpose and, of the fifty-two, it was specifically decided that nine exchanges would be made with private industry. It followed, of course, that in return for the fifty-two officers who would leave, Departments would take in the same number. Here too, the number to come from the private sector was nine.
While the response has not been at all as good as I would have hoped, indeed not at all as good — it has been virtually half the target set by the Government — I have to say nevertheless that much more has been achieved in this area in the last six months or so than had been achieved in the area of job swops in the previous four years.
I want to emphasise once again that there must be much more interchanges between the public and private sectors. I recently announced the establishment of a small working party comprised of both public and private sectors to look at the matter and make suggestions for its further development. I hope that the small number of examples which we have of people participating in this scheme will encourage others, and their employers, to become involved.
In my experience the small number of public servants who have had experience of the private sector have benefited from that experience enormously. It seems to me, in the context of my earlier remarks, that young people now entering the labour force must expect, in the course of their careers, to change their jobs and perhaps their careers and workstyles radically at least two to three times during their working life. In that context it seems not only reasonable but correct that people whose career is set to be in the public service should readily avail of the opportunity to receive experience of other types of careers within the private sector for a short period of time. Those young men and women who believe they are destined for the top of the Civil Service should be the first to volunteer for experience on the basis of a year or two years of the needs, demands, pressures and stimulation of working within the private sector. Equally, those who see themselves as the captains of industry or business should — because of the enormous amount of interface there is between the public and private sectors — realise that experience gained from a year or two years working within the Civil Service, in turn, can only stand them in good stead in their quest to become leaders within the private sector.
All of us, both public and private sector managers, should encourage young executives of talent to participate in the scheme of job swops which has now been in operation for some time with limited success only. I take this opportunity of encouraging managers in both sectors to become more actively interested in this scheme, in particular private sector managers who have large groups of employees within their enterprises. There is much to be gained, and learned, by each side from such a concept. It can only serve to strengthen Irish management generally.
The Government are committed to making this temporary job exchange scheme work as widely as possible and we expect the co-operation of public service managers in this regard.
I want again to issue a special appeal to private sector management, especially those employing large numbers, to co-operate, for the greater good of the economy at large.
In the course of the past year I announced various measures which, I hope, will improve the image of the public service and likewise guarantee a better overall service to the citizen. As and from 1 March next letters written by civil servants must be signed personally by them and, in addition their names and grades must be typed in underneath their signature. They must give their names when dealing with the public on the telephone and those directly in contact with the public must wear name badges. Indeed, a number of Departments have already instituted these changes and, already, it is a pleasure to hear the extremely favourable comment from the general public who have encountered the changing regime.
My Department are also currently working on a scheme which will result in many of our official forms and circulars being either re-designed, using simple, ordinary, everyday language, or it is hoped in certain cases, abolished altogether. There is now a section in my Department with special responsibility for improvements in public office facilities and increased training for staff in dealing with the public.
All of these measures might appear trite at first sight, but I believe that they will go a long way towards providing the citizens with the efficient and courteous service to which they are entitled.
One of the greatest bugbears and sources of criticism amongst the general public of the civil service is its anonymity. Those working within the civil service should realise that it is to their benefit, as well as being the minimum possible level of courtesy which the general public should accept, that people within the public service give their names and ranks and identify themselves when dealing verbally at public counters, by telephone or in writing so that the client, the member of the public with whom they are dealing, knows in turn who can be contacted in response to the letter or phone call, or if they need to contact the public service offices again to follow up the query which they have initiated. That is the very least that a member of the general public should be entitled to expect. Certainly, no private sector enterprise could continue in business on the basis of operating a service through anonymity.
I really do believe that it is in the best possible interests of the civil service, as well as providing a much higher level of job satisfaction, for officers within that service to identify themselves in their action, so that there a personal rapport is established between their clients — the general public — and themselves on behalf of their Department and their Minister. It is, after all, in the long run the general public who are providing the finances to operate a public service and that is what they should expect.
Those changes which I have announced, whilst I have said that they may sound trite on the surface, represent a very fundamental way in which the image of the civil service will improve, and improve very quickly, in the minds of those who feel disaffected by its present anonymity.
To return to the specific provisions of the budget, as Deputies will be aware there has been an enormous upsurge in sporting activities in this country over the last number of years. This interest has further increased this year because of the Olympic Games. One cannot but recommend and welcome this interest, particularly because it acts as a counter-agent, in the case of young people, against drugs and vandalism. When one considers the example of 11,000 people participating in the Dublin city marathon, one begins to come to terms with the huge popularity that sporting and athletic activities enjoy in Ireland today.
A significant amount of the organisation involved in these sporting activities is done on a voluntary basis and the dedication and commitment of those concerned, particularly in the case of youth clubs, are overwhelming.
The Government have, on a number of occasions, firmly and positively indicated their support for Ireland's participation in the Olympic Games. A special budgetary allocation of £140,000, which I should emphasise is over and above what will be allocated by the Minister of State at the Department of Education, Deputy Donal Creed, has been given for the Olympic Council of Ireland through the budget and a further £10,000 is being made available to assist in preparing and sending a team to the Olympics for the Disabled. This, in conjunction with the £100,000 which has been given to the GAA for specific projects connected with the centenary of that organisation and the £50,000 given to other sporting organisations in the budget, over and above the normal Department of Education allocation of some £700,000 for sporting bodies, is an indication of the level of commitment that this Government has to sport in Ireland.
To further enhance that commitment, I wish to announce to the House that I have decided that all those public servants participating as competitors in the Olympic Games should be allowed special leave of absence, with pay, for the period whilst they attend the Olympic Games on behalf of this country. Any such competitor can organise the details of this leave with his or her own Department, in consultation with my Department as required.
I believe that this further gesture by the Government will in no small way contribute to Ireland's standing and, it is hoped, success at the Games.
Finally, I hope that the various provisions of the budget — which were much more detailed and should have been given far greater consideration by commentators and the Opposition than they appear to have been given — will help in whatever way possible to stimulate the economy to attain, at least, the level of growth forecast for it by independent commentators at the outset of the year. It was incumbent upon the Government to ensure that every possibility for real growth should be encouraged and not inhibited in the slightest. One of the examples that positively shows how the budget will achieve that effect is, as I have mentioned, the fact that it will have an effect of less that 1 per cent on the CPI.
There is quite a range of encouragement and incentive for industry. For business entrepreneurs and for risk-takers, if they exist within the community and within society, the opportunity is there for them to provide further expansion, or new business, or industry based upon the provision of employment. If they are good enough, they can and will expect every support and encouragement from this Government.
We must set ourselves to the task of tackling, on a structured basis, the unemployment to which I devoted such a large part of my speech. We must ascertain how much of that unemployment is now structured and, that being so, examine fundamentally work patterns, the expectations of those within the workforce and ways of sharing the available amount of work with the maximum number of people. We must be prepared to approach all those tasks, not on a historically prejudiced basis but on the basis of what society and the future offer by way of challenge.
I do not believe, and have said in various contexts, that we should ever be afraid of the challenge of tomorrow. We have entered into what has become known as the information society. To many of us who perhaps have not been familiar in the world of education or in our previous careers with technology, it may sound daunting. To some, obviously it appears frightening. That should not be the case. In many respects, this country has achieved a fairly notable record in the area, for instance, of software technology. We should be identifying the challenge of technology, adapting our society to meet that challenge and to gain the maximum from it by participating in the provision of that technology for the remainder of the world.
There are, as I have said, a number of good indicators in that respect, as to how the country has reacted over the last number of years. I should like to compliment, particularly, the Industrial Development Association for their activities in endeavouring to promote Ireland as the Silicon Valley of Europe. We should all of us in society be prepared, realising that we have had, generally, a conservative and cautious approach to solutions to our problems, to accept that the world has changed more in the last hundred years than it has changed since time began.
