Vol. 366 No. 11
I move:
That a sum not exceeding £10,043,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December 1986 for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for the Public Service, for expenditure in relation to certain information technology initiatives and for payment of a grant-in-aid.
I propose to discuss Vote 21 — Civil Service Commission; Vote 22 — Office of the Ombudsman; Vote 23 — Superannuation and Retired Allowances; and Vote 51 — Increases in Remuneration and Pensions — with this Vote.
The past year has been a period of solid achievement by my Department and I am very pleased to be able to outline for the House some of the significant developments in the performance of the Department during that period. I am fully committed to building on the developments to date and continuing progress during my term of office. The high point of 1985 was the publication in September of the Government's White Paper on the Public Service Serving the Country Better.
The development of the public service which the White Paper proposes in not just for its own sake but for the public and the taxpayer who at the end of the day are entitled to receive from the public service courtesy and efficiency in dealing with their affairs.
The Government's commitment to the implementation of the White Paper is also beyond doubt. The commitment can be seen in their decision to underpin with legislation many of the decisions in the White Paper. The drafting of the Public Service Development Bill is well underway and I am continuing my efforts to bring it before the House at the earliest opportunity.
The Government are also receiving regular progress reports on implementation. Efforts to date have been very encouraging particularly in relation to the introduction of management systems but we still have a long way to go. I can assure the House of my continuing determination to achieve the aims and targets set out in the White Paper.
Mention of management systems brings me to what is essentially the foundation stone of the White Paper. The management system which is proposed for Departments is based on the following elements:
the identification of the aims, objectives and programmes of the Department.
the assignment of responsibility and authority for the achievement of the objectives of each programme to individual managers together with the necessary budgets.
the identification of the results expected from each manager during a specific period and the measurement of results.
the development of a climate of cost effectiveness and more critical examination of programmes and their value for money.
This system emphasises personal responsibility and accountability for results and value for money and, while it may not appear to be very novel to Deputies who have business experience, it is a significant development in the very different circumstances of a Government Department.
It is not proposed that there should be total uniformity in the development of management systems across the Civil Service. That would make a nonsense of the White Paper proposals and would probably be doomed to failure. Provided that the general guidelines are adhered to, Departments are free to adapt the system to their own requirements. My Department has and will continue to make its expertise in this area available to other Departments to help in developing their systems.
It is my intention to bring about through the management systems a situation in which Civil Service managers will produce good results because of the system in which they operate rather than in spite of it. The latter, all too often, has been the situation up to now. The harnessing to better effect of the considerable commitment and potential which exists among Civil Service managers is a point I will touch on later.
As to the degree of progress which has actually been made in introducing management systems, this has varied across Departments. My Department first introduced a system of accountable management during 1984 and since then has refined the system so that we now have a comprehensive plan for the management of the Department.
Since the publication of the White Paper substantive progress in the introduction of management systems has been made in a number of other Departments. I shall be expecting further evidence of progress by the time of the next report to Government and I take this opportunity to impress on all Departments the need to give priority to removing any obstacles which at present hinder their progress in developing appropriate systems.
The introduction of management systems is a fundamental step if Departments are to improve the service they provide. It is not however the only step. Departments need to look at what areas of their activities could best be carried out in separate executive offices. The Public Service Development Bill will empower Ministers to set up executive offices to cater for large volumes of executive work.
The offices will have a large degree of autonomy in carrying out the work assigned to them. The establishment of such offices will free Ministers from involvement in time consuming routine administration and give them more time to concentrate on longer term planning and policy issues. The officials responsible for the offices will be able to concentrate on the delivery of services in the most efficient and cost-effective way. Ministers will not, of course, relinquish any policy-making functions under these arrangements.
While the formal establishing of such offices must await the passing of the Public Service Development Bill, progress has already been made in one area on a non-statutory basis. The Department of Social Welfare is in the process of establishing a Social Welfare Services Office to cater for the making of social welfare payments. Other examples of possible executive offices mentioned in the White Paper are the Central Statistics Office, the Air Navigation Services Office and the Meteorological Service.
As further proof of their commitment to better management the Government have also set out in the White Paper its proposals for the transfer of authority and controls from the centre. According as systems of management are developed, the controls exercised by the Department of the Public Service and the Department of Finance over the management decisions of other Departments will be reviewed with the intention of delegating as much as possible.
Of course, this move towards greater delegation and decentralisation is entirely consistent with the programme of devolution from central Government to local government which was announced last May. I am chairing the implementation group set up by the Government to oversee this programme and I expect to have shortly the reports of the sub-committees which are considering how best to transfer a range of centralised functions to local authorities.
The drive for improvements in management will require continuous attention to efficiency and effectiveness throughout the Civil Service. The continuing severe limitation on resources has created a climate in which more attention and energy has to be devoted to providing existing, and often additional, services with diminishing resources, especially manpower. My Department has a major role to play in this area and has carried out major reviews in staff intensive areas such as the Office of the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social Welfare to identify potential savings. A similar review is underway in the Department of Agriculture.
These reviews of efficiency and effectiveness complement the new management systems and will greatly help management to monitor the operation and results of programmes and to better assess priorities when it comes to allocating resources.
While the development of improved management structures and systems is essential for the development of the public service, special attention has to be paid to the two critical areas of numbers employed and pay costs.
As Deputies are aware, there are curbs on recruitment in local authorities, health boards and grant-aided bodies and an embargo on recruitment and on the filling of two out of every three vacancies in the Civil Service has been in operation since 1981. There has been a reduction of 3,700 posts in Civil Service staffing levels since that time. Building on Reality envisages a total drop of 5,000 in public service numbers during the plan period.
These cuts are necessary but are hardly draconian in the light of the total size of the public service and the large and unsustainable growth of almost 40,000 jobs which occurred in the public service during the period 1977-1981. Despite the overriding need for economy, the Government has not adopted a negative or insensitive approach in the area of numbers control.
Where increases have been necessary — for example, where more gardaí or teachers were required — they have been provided. In addition, the restrictions on staffing have been administered with flexibility. Staff have been transferred over the past few years from other parts of the Civil Service to alleviate pressure in overworked areas and to ensure that overall staff reductions do not detract from the level of service being provided. The areas which have been relieved by these interdepartmental transfers include the Departments of Social Welfare, Foreign Affairs, during the Irish EC Presidency, and Finance and the offices of the Houses of the Oireachtas and the Revenue Commissioners as well as the Central Statistics Office.
The embargo on staffing has never been an end in itself. Its importance lies in its contribution to reducing the overall cost of the Civil Service and producing a leaner, fitter system of public administration. The White Paper outlines how the embargo will be progressively modified, to give Departments more say over the detail of their staffing allocations while achieving further reductions in the numbers employed in the Civil Service as envisaged in the national plan.
For the remaining period of the national plan, instead of applying a standard embargo across the board in the Civil Service, the staffing level to be reached by each Department, in the light of their particular circumstances a year hence will be determined. At the same time, a decision will be taken as to what proportion of vacancies arising during the year may be filled in each Department. These overall staffing complements are at present being settled for end 1986. The general aim will be to achieve a reduction in posts, bearing in mind what would have emerged in 1986 had the embargo continued to apply. In determining the end 1986 staffing targets all factors will be taken into account, such as the effect of the embargo to date in each Department and the need for special arrangements in areas of particular need. It will be the responsibility of each Department to work within their allocation. Equivalent measures will be implemented by the Departments directly responsible for the local authorities, health boards and noncommercial State-sponsored bodies within the Government's overall policy.
Mention of grading leads to the issue of reducing the number of Civil Service grades. Almost all serious commentators on the Civil Service have drawn attention to its large number of different grades — it includes now around 700 — and have suggested that this proliferation of grades hampers the development of the service and the encouragement of mobility within it. While some of these distinctions of grades reflect significant differences in the work which they do, others are clearly the products of historical accidents and have questionable relevance to the later decades of the 20th century. The Government have decided that the number of grades should, where feasible, be reduced and Departments have been told to set about reducing them.
If we were starting out to establish the Civil Service from scratch it would probably be possible to slot all of our 700 or so existing grades into nine or ten large groups. To do so against the background of established pay relationships and career path expectation could, if embarked upon without careful assessment of the implications of each move, involve substantial immediate and long-term cost and industrial relations problems which would diminish rather than enhance service to the public in the years ahead.
One area where we have had an opportunity to weigh up the balance of advantage in amalgamating grades involved two of the larger groups in the General Service — 2,000 executive officers and 800 staff officers. The intention to proceed with the amalgamation of these grades has already been announced in the White Paper and detailed arrangements for the amalgamation are being finalised.
In the period immediately before and after Christmas last, the former Minister for the Public Service, Deputy Boland, had an exhaustive series of discussions on pay issues with various public service unions. The negotiations eventually resulted in a package of proposals covering the 25th round and other pay-related matters.
The "round" increase of 7 per cent consists of a 3 per cent increase from 1 May 1986, 2 per cent from 1 January next and a further 2 per cent from 1 May 1987. As regards special increases, outstanding findings on claims for special increases will be implemented in three phases over the period from 1 December 1986 to 1 July 1988, while other cases may be implemented in three phases over the period from 1 December 1987 to 1 July 1989.
The package of proposals has now been offered to a wide variety of public service unions and associations and perhaps I could give a brief summary of the current position in the main areas. On the Civil Service General Staff Panel both the Civil Service Executive Union and the Federated Union of Government Employees have indicated their acceptance of the 25th round package. The package has been offered to the other unions on the staff panel and is being considered by them. Discussions have also taken place with the Union of Professional and Technical Civil Servants. These have proved protracted and difficult and broke down yesterday evening on the issue of arbitration findings. It is my belief that a realistic settlement is possible even at this stage and I exhort the UPTCS to look further at the proposals put to them and to consider the damage to the country before escalating the dispute. I should also add that my Department are available at short notice for further discussions.
Two of the three unions on the Civil Service Higher Staff Panel — the Association of Higher Civil Servants and the Veterinary Officers Association — have accepted the package as have three of the main Garda bodies that is, the Garda Representative Association, the Represenetative Body for Superintendents and the Chief Superintendents' Representative Body. The Prison Officers' Association accepted the offer yesterday.
As the House is aware, detailed discussions have taken place separately with the teacher unions. A successful conclusion to these discussions was reached recently on a set of proposals which included the acceptance by the teacher unions of the package on the 25 round pay increase and related matters. We are awaiting a formal response on the package from the Local Authority and Health Services Staff Panel.
Some confusion seems to exist, particularly among State bodies themselves, about the implications of the Government's decision in the White Paper to extend to all commercial State bodies the statutory requirements about pay and conditions which already apply to some of them. I take this opportunity to clear up some of the confusion.
The White Paper decision is not a new development. The statutory requirements are already well established. They were introduced in the Gas Act, 1976, and have since been extended to a number of other bodies. They do not imply statutory wage control, nor are they intended to undermine the existing industrial relations procedures in the commercial State bodies. These fears have not been realised in the case of the bodies where these legal provisions already exist.
Negotiations still remain a matter for management and unions in accordance with existing procedures. Indeed, the Government, in the national plan, Building on Reality, stated explicitly that the basis for determining conditions of pay and employment should be free collective bargaining. That will remain the position in all the commercial State bodies.
The need to reduce the size of the public service has been a priority for the Government during the past few years. It has not, however, operated in such a rigid fashion that worthwhile job creation initiatives have been neglected. The highly successful schemes of job sharing and career breaks have resulted in the provision of over 4,000 extra jobs at minimal or no extra cost. In the Civil Service alone, 281 staff are job sharing and 1,476 are on career breaks. Comparable figures for other areas such as local authorities and the health sector are 44 and 2,552 respectively.
The Government have as their main priority the reduction in unemployment particularly among young people. In the White Paper they announced their decision to establish a temporary clerical trainee category in the Civil Service to give work experience to 1,000 young school leavers. The first temporary clerical trainees had been taken on by November 1985. The full 1,000 have now been recruited, including 50 disabled young people, and have been distributed to Departments and offices throughout the country. About 600 are located in Dublin and the remainder in various centres around the country. They are being given a variety of clerical experience and are receiving appropriate training.
I am very pleased with the success of the scheme and I have heard nothing but favourable reports from Departments and offices employing these young people. In the autumn we plan to hold a special competition allowing the trainees to compete for 100 specially reserved permanent posts of clerical assistant. Obviously all cannot succeed at the competition but even those who do not will leave the Civil Service with a range of useful work experience behind them which will fit them for employment in other areas.
It is my intention to continue this programme of work experience for young people because of the vital contribution it makes to their development and the 1986 scheme will be launched in the latter half of the year.
The Government are determined to continue their programme of increased utilisation of information technology to improve the efficiency of public service administration, to increase the effectiveness of management and professional staff and to make access to services more readily available to the public. The widespread use of modern technology is essential to deliver an increasingly complex range of services at a time when we are committed to further reduction in Civil Service numbers.
Central support, co-ordination and control of such widespread development is important if the momentum is to be maintained and resources used to best advantage. For this purpose the old central computer function in my Department was reorganised in 1985 into a structure more in line with the rapidly changing technology.
First a central computing service is responsible for developing and supporting common and service-wide applications and for supporting smaller Departments which have not as yet established their own systems development services. Second, the information management advisory service advises and assists Departments with the development of information technology plans and co-ordinates plans between Departments. Evidence to date with the information technology planning process has shown that it is an area requiring quite sophisticated techniques which should pay off in much improved systems.
The advisory service also undertakes research into areas of information technology and formulates guidelines and standards for the acquisition, introduction and use of systems and applications. At present a major study with the assistance of consultants is being undertaken on the subject of networking to facilitate service wide communications between different Departments and systems.
The third function to be exercised centrally is one of control of expenditure on information technology which has now been merged with the general control on staffing to give an overall balanced control of organisational expenditure. This is a time of rapid developments in information technology and I could spend a long time listing and describing the many new directions being taken across the Civil Service. Perhaps one example within this House will suffice.
Members will be particularly interested in a proposed development of direct relevance to their work as public representatives. The proposals of the Leader of the House in relation to the use of technology in the business of the Houses of the Oireachtas are progressing and I am making funds available for this purpose from Subhead E — Information Technology Initiatives — of the Vote for my Department. Our policy and action in relation to information technology are based on continuing review of the latest developments and best practices in this rapidly evolving and critical area. We will continue to promote and expedite its effective utilisation as an essential feature of developing public services to meet modern requirements.
So far I have concentrated largely on the changes in systems and structures which are a vital part of our efforts to overhaul the public service. This, of course, is only half the story. The success of any new approaches will depend on the motivation and commitment of the staff who operate them.
The commitment and dedication of civil servants has always been beyond reproach and I am confident that this will continue to be the case. I am also convinced that civil servants themselves are seeing in the White Paper greater opportunities for their own development and for more fulfilling careers than heretofore existed.
Specific development initiatives which are already under way include the preparation by Departments of comprehensive plans for the training and development of staff. These plans are to cover all aspects of development from placement, mobility, appraisal and education as well as on and off the job training. My Department are currently organising a series of workshops to help Departments in formulating these plans.
A half day module on information technology has been incorporated into all management courses presented by the Civil Service Training Centre. The training needs of Departments which are implementing the technology are being met through learning groups of officers who come together at intervals over a period to identify and undergo common training programmes.
Promotion will continue to be one of the main rewards for civil servants who perform well. The White Paper stressed the principle of merit, allied to that of mobility, in the arrangements for promotion in the Civil Service. The top level appointments system has opened all posts at Assistant Secretary level and above to all staff at Principal level and equivalent throughout the Civil Service. To date, 44 vacancies have been filled through this system, 14 of these by officers from Departments other than those in which the vacancies occured. The top level appointments scheme, by breaking down barriers to promotion, allows the best talent to get ahead, thereby improving the overall management of the Civil Service.
Similarly at Principal and Assistant Principal levels, the White Paper proposed that the interdepartmental promotion schemes at these levels would be widened to cover all staff who have not already been included, Negotiations on this matter are taking place with the relevant staff associations and unions and I expect them to be successfully concluded in the near future.
Effective ways of assessing performance are required to operate successfully a system of promotion based on merit and to identify the development needs of staff. Performance appraisal schemes are already in existence for all grades from Executive Officer upwards in the general administrative stream, for all posts under the top level appointments committee and for certain departmental grades. The aim now is to extend performance appraisal to other grades particularly those in the technical and professional areas.
The principle of introducing merit pay has already been decided by the Government and a scheme is being prepared by my Department in consultation with other Departments. Staff interests will also be consulted as envisaged in the White Paper. Merit awards — within a range of 5 to 10 per cent of annual salary — will be made to not more than 10 per cent of the staff in any grade or department and then only in accordance with rigorous standards. I would hope to see merit pay in operation in the near future as I believe it will further motivate staff to achieve excellence in performance.
A scheme of staff exchanges was introduced in 1979 for the purpose of giving staff fresh experiences and more challenging tasks as well as to introduce new ideas to the Civil Service. The White Paper states that there should be about 50 exchanges each year, 25 per cent involving the private sector. I am quite disappointed with the results of this scheme to date. While the exchanges which have taken place have been very successful, very few Departments have achieved their exchange quotas.
Participation by the private sector has also been disappointing despite a major marketing exercise by my Department last year. I must, however, record my appreciation to the small number of private sector companies who have wholeheartedly co-operated in the scheme. It might be invidious to mention names but those who have co-operated have the sincere thanks of the Government. I shall be making every effort during my term of office to improve participation in the scheme and I shall, if necessary, be reporting to the Government on the matter.
Negotiations are continuing with staff interests on the development of the welfare service as envisaged in the White Paper and I expect them to be successfully concluded shortly.
As part of the Civil Service programme to deal with alcoholism a successful series of information seminars on alcoholism has been held for Civil Service managers and supervisors throughout the country. Three thousand six hundred civil servants attended. Each seminar was of two hours duration and 58 seminars in all were held between September 1985 and April 1986.
The Government also announced in this year's budget that pensions payable under the public service widows' and children's ex gratia schemes were being increased in two stages from 1 January 1986 and 1 January 1987 to bring them into line with pensions payable under the contributory widows' and children's scheme.
Ba mhaith liom rud éigin a rá anois mar gheall ar Ghaeleagras na Seirbhíse Poiblí agus ar an Láraonad Forbartha Gaeilge atá ag feidhmiú mar chuid de mo Roinn.
Tá Gaeleagras ann chun an Ghaeilge a chur chun cinn sa Státseirbhís trí chúrsaí Ghaeilge agus imeachtaí caidrimh trí Ghaeilge. Tá foireann riaracháin agus múinteoirí, buan agus pairtaimseartha, acu.
Bíonn cúrsaí Gaeilge ar siúl acu i nGaeleagras féin, laistigh de na Ranna Stáit agus ar imeall na Gaeltachta. Chomh maith leosan bíonn cúrsaí trí Ghaeilge ar siúl acu, mar shampla, ceol, rince agus amhránaíocht, agus imeachtaí soisialta trí Ghaeilge chun timpeallacht dhátheangach a chothú. Bíonn cúrsaí ar siúl acu sa Ghaeltacht faoi scéim scoláireachta atá oscaialte don tSeirbhís Phoiblí ar fad.
Tugann an scéim sin deis freisin do sheirbhísigh phoiblí agus dá gclanna a laethanta saoire a chaitheamh sa Ghaeltacht le Gaeleagras agus a gcuid Gaeilge a chleachtadh agus a fheabhsú.
Is cuid den Láraonad Forbartha é Gaeleagras. Tá Rúnaí Cúnta as mo Roinnse i gceannas ar an Láraonad. Is é an aidhm atá ag an Laraonad ná cuidiú le Ranna an Plean Gníomhaíochta don Ghaeilge a chur i bhfeidhm ar fud na Státseirbhíse agus go háirithe seirbhís trí Ghaeilge a thairiscint agus a thabhairt do phobal na Gaeilge. Tá ceangal ag an Láraonad le Ranna eile trí Chomhairle a thagann le chéile ó am go ham.
Chuir an Laraonad Treoirlínte chuig gach Roinn tamall ó shin chun cuidiú leo an Plean Gníomhaíochta a chur i bhfeidhm de réir a chéile. Reachtáil siad le deanaí dianchúrsaí trawnála sa Ghaeltacht chun cuidiú le seirbhísigh phoiblí seirbhís trí Ghaeilge a thabhairt do phobal na Gaeltachta.
Chuir siad comharthaí ar fáil freisin ag tairiscint seirbhís trí Ghaeilge agus leabhráin chun cuidiú le seirbhís a thabhairt.
Chuideodh sé, dar liom, leis an iarracht dá dtabharfaimís — ionadaithe poiblí — idir Airí, Teachtaí agus Seanadóirí spreagadh agus dea-shampla. Ó mo thaobhsa de táim ag fáil cúnaimh ó Ghaeleagras chun feabhas a chur ar mo chuid Gaeilge féin. Tá sé ar aigne agam socruithe ar an gcuma céanna a dhéanamh le haghaidh mo chompánaigh uile san dá Theach.
I have already stated that one of the fundamental purposes of the White Paper is to improve the quality and courtesy of the service given to the public. A number of specific initiatives have already been taken which I believe will result in a marked improvement in the relationship between the Civil Service and the public. Reception areas in a number of Departments have, for example, been improved — in the Departments of Education, Social Welfare and the Custom House.
About 130 Civil Service forms have been redesigned to make them more understandable and informative. Redesign has also included the elimination of some unnecessary forms. Guidelines have been issued to Departments about selection and training of staff in public offices and courses on providing good customer services are also being held.
Progress in establishing general inquiry offices and a central tax inquiry office are well advanced and I expect to see some of these in operation by the end of the year. Arrangements about the identification of individual civil servants dealing with the public — through wearing name badges and giving names on letters and in phone calls — are already in operation.
I turn now to some of the financial details relating to this group of Estimates. The Estimate for Vote 20 — the Office of the Minister for the Public Service — is £10.043 million, an increase of £3.057 million on the 1985 outturn. This Vote covers the day to day running expenses of the Department and comes in the main under four headings, three of expenditure and one — Appropriations-in-Aid — of income.
The increase on this Vote compared to 1985 is due mainly to increased expenditure on technology. A new provision of £1.7 million has, as I referred to earlier, been included to facilitate the exploration of major new directions and opportunities in the application of information technology throughout the Civil Service. A sum of £1.05 million has been provided for the purchase, leasing, rental and maintenance of computer equipment used by the Department's central computing service. Provision has also been made to cover consultancy and equipment costs relating to the development of computerised personnel administration and information systems for the civil service. Pay of staff in the Department amounts to £4.945 million which is 49 per cent of the total Estimate.
A provision of £1.21 million has been provided by way of a grant-in-aid for the Institute of Public Administration. This grant-in-aid is a contribution towards the general expenses of the institute and includes the corporate subscriptions on behalf of Government Departments. The institute are involved in the training and education of public servants, in promoting and undertaking administrative research and in publishing sources of material on public administration.
Appropriations-in-Aid on the Vote arise mainly from receipts in respect of computer services provided by the central computing service for bodies other than Government Departments and, in the case of the Department of Social Welfare, costs properly chargeable to the Social Insurance Fund. Receipts for 1986 are expected to come to £0.877 million which will be £0.344 million less than the outturn for 1985. This is mainly due to the transfer in March 1986 of the processing of the social welfare benefits system from this Department to the Department of Social Welfare's own computer equipment resulting in a large reduction in the amount to be recouped from the Social Insurance Fund.
On Vote 21 — the Civil Service Commission — the cost of running the Civil Service Commission and Local Appointments Commission in 1986 is estimated at a net amount of £1,628,000. This amount is required to cover the cost of salaries, wages and allowances of the staff of the two commissions, the cost of the competitions run by them and various other expenses. The gross cost comes to £2,271,000 but revenue received will reduce this by £643,000 to £1,628,000.
On Vote 22 — the Office of the Ombudsman — the Estimate for this Vote is £749,000, and increase of 27 per cent on the 1985 outturn. This is due to increased staff and other costs following the extension from 1 April 1985 of the Ombudsman's remit to cover local authorities, health boards, Telecom Éireann and An Post.
The fourth Vote is Vote 23 — Superannuation and Retired Allowances — which required a net amount of £46.757 million. The Vote covers payments of pension and retirement lump sums to established and non-established civil servants, to their widows and widows of the Judiciary. The increase on this Vote compared to the 1985 outturn is due to the increase in the number of pensioners and the revision of pensions in line with pay increases.
As regards Vote 51 — Increases in Remuneration and Pensions — this Vote provides £70 million to meet the cost of the 25th round pay package and other pay-related matters for public service groups. As announced in the budget, the cost of two pension concessions, that is, the introduction of full pension parity in relation to special increases with effect from 1 July 1986 and the concession for public service widows' and children's ex gratia pension, are included in the figure of £70 million. The provision in the Vote will be distributed to Departments later in the year when the full position on departmental provisions for pay can be assessed.
There are a number of important issues in this Estimate that we should debate. Over the years the Department of the Public Service has become more important because of their involvement in several key areas of Irish life.
I could easily speak for 45 minutes on one or two issues which the Minister did not mention, for example, 15 October last year and other issues, but I will not do that. I will talk about the White Paper and some of the views which I and Fianna Fáil have about Civil Service and public service reform. The Minister said that some of his suggestions might not seem novel to Deputies who have business experience. This echoes my own idea. Today we have a 20th century State with Victorian administration, although I acknowledge the efforts of the people in the Department of the Public Service to change that. We need to equip ourselves with an administrative machine capable of meeting the demands of a modern State but also capable of bridging the growing gulf between the Government and the people who pay the taxes.
For 20 years we have talked about Civil Service reform. Fianna Fáil initiated the process by establishing the Devlin Commission to examine the structure and organisation of the public service. The work of that commission was presented in 1969. The report of the Public Services Organisational Review Group proposed a grand review strategy for virtually altering the administrative system inherited when this State was established. That was almost 20 years ago. At that stage Fianna Fáil, in Government, committed themselves to the principal proposals in the report and then, because of difficult times and the Northern Ireland trauma of the seventies, it became rather difficult for much reform to take place. When we joined the EC the task slowed somewhat.
Tragically for the country and for the Irish administration new regime the Coalition, when they took power in 1973, lacked the capacity, the experience, and above all else, the political will to progress the reforms recommended in the Devlin Report. When, in 1977 the Taoiseach took up the issue again, he said in his very first speech when elected as Taoiseach in this House, that the reform progress would continue. The late George Colley as Minister for Finance, reiterated that commitment and Ray MacSharry was appointed to implement it. It is on record now that a significant amount of the spade work was done at that stage and the enthusiasm of Ray MacSharry was acknowledged by those people who take an interest in reform in the public service.
The Deputy should refer to Members by their titles. This other practice is creeping in and I think I should draw attention to it.
He was the Minister of State at the Department of the Public Service at that time. It is getting difficult to do as the Ceann Comhairle says now and that is why the other practice is creeping in. We have some Ministers of State who hold many portfolios that one almost has to have it in writing which job he is doing — I know it does not apply to this Minister.
The Deputy should not refer to them by their Christian names.
Since then there has been almost no effort made to bring real reform into the public service. The White Paper issued last year was an attempt to do something in this direction. At that time I criticised the Minister for the Public Service, Deputy Boland. I know there were internal difficulties. There has been a lack of co-operation with some of the unions, and perhaps the Minister had difficulty in communicating with a number of the people involved, but, unfortunately, very little of what is contained in the White Paper was brought into force.
The Taoiseach recently told the House we would have legislation before the summer legalising some of the proposals in the White Paper. I may have missed it, but I did not hear the Minister give such a commitment this morning. Perhaps he will tell us later what is happening in this direction. Will we see this legislation this session? If not, it is unlikely we will see it in the life of this Dáil.
Experience of the grand reform strategy approach, which was advocated in 1969 and again in the White Paper, is not unique. Many European countries which attempted the root and branch administrative reform in the sixties and seventies experienced difficulties. I do not want to be too negative but it is not easy to reform an administrative system which has been in existence for 60 years. A number of European countries, particularly OECD countries, have written a lot about this and in the past five years have responded to the situation by adopting a more selective approach aimed at achieving radical change in key problem areas rather than an overall change which was the ethos of the Devlin Report. This is probably the approach of the present Government, although they have achieved very little so far, and it is the approach the Fianna Fáil Government would adopt.
The reform package we have spoken about is on the one hand aimed at creating a public service whose members are more directly responsible for their actions and, on the other hand, a public service which will be more responsible to the citizens it is intended to serve. By making public servants more responsible for their actions, the aim would be to create a situation where something approaching modern management practices will be introduced to effect in the public service. The objective would be to ensure that the Irish taxpayer receives a £1 service for every £1 tax spent.
Ideas for making the public service, and more particularly the Civil Service, more responsive and more individually responsible have been explored over the past 15 years. Since there has been a number of debates about this subject inside and outside this House, I would like to concentrate my remarks on the challenge of bringing the administration to the citizens. There are a number of striking features in the concept of the relationships with the citizens. The most universally true fact in public administration in recent decades has been the growth of Government. The past 25 years witnessed an unprecedented growth in the public service. This growth in scope has been accompanied by a corresponding expansion in the scale of Government in terms of the number of public service agencies, the number of public servants and the costs. The growth both in the scope and scale of State activities has, in turn, led to a growth in the level to which the State determines the individual citizen's economic and social well being. The growth has also led to an unprecedented level of interaction between the citizen and the State. It is in this area that I feel we should focus attention in the immediate years ahead.
Improving relations between the citizen and the administration is very important. There are very real and practical advantages to be gained from improving relations between the citizen and the State which would be reaped not just for the administration of political leadership, but most importantly for the citizen, there would be very real political economic organisation and social benefits. Politically it is important that we improve relationships between citizen and State for a number of reasons. In the short-term by ensuring that the citizen is not injured in his dealings with the State, we get public co-operation and consensus which are vital elements in the success of any public policy to be implemented. In the long-term, improvements are necessary because, unless the Government and the people can learn to co-exist, political stability will ultimately be threatened. We in Ireland sadly have a perfect example of political alienation within an artificially created State which has led to mistrust and ultimately to violence north of the Border.
In economic terms improvements in citizen administration relations will bring cost and development advantages. Unnecessary bureaucracy means unnecessary costs. These costs are borne not just by the public purse but also by the citizen, in particular the smaller businesses on which we will be depending in the years ahead to generate economic growth and more importantly to generate jobs. By rectifying the relationship between the citizen and the administration and by improving that relationship, we can only cut out unnecessary and excessive bureaucracy and thereby trim costs. We can also lift some of the burden of bureaucracy from the shoulders of the people.
Administratively improving relationships between the citizen and the State will mean that there will be better feedback and, therefore, better evaluation schemes. It will also mean that public servants will feel more directly and personally committed to the tasks they perform. Socially the advantages are obvious. The relationship between the citizen and the administration has grown so complex that much of the life of Irish political figures is spent in attempting to mediate between the citizen and the State. This undermines public confidence in the impartiality of many public programmes. It also creates suspicion of injustice. It should not be necessary for people to seek the services of their public representatives to guarantee the delivery of these public services. By improving relations between the citizens and the administration we are improving the capacity of the individual citizen to gain the services to which he is entitled.
Public administration reform is not just about economics. It is about politics. It is not just about organisation improvements. It also concerns social justice. There are some steps which we in Oppostion have been looking at in relation to public service reform. There is the one stop shop I have spoken about on many occasions, information, consultation and institutional measures and an attempt to take some of the bureaucracy out of our present administration.
The aim of the one stop shop would be to create an environment within which public business is conducted and which minimises potential friction between the citizen and the administration. A very wide variety of innovations come to mind under this heading. An area in which improvements can and must be made is access to public service institutions and to public services. The type of measure I have in mind would be the opening of street front offices in convenient locations, the grouping of activities in one location, the simplification of language in official communications, the reduction in the number of forms and the simplification of legal measures ranging right across the spectrum of improvements in the training of the public service contact staff and the personalisation of services by abolishing the remaining areas of anonymity.
While the present Minister has made much of abolishing anonymity in the Civil Service at contact level, the first initiative in this area was taken during the term of office of the last Fianna Fáil Administration. Some attempts have been made to include the level of information. For example, the Department of Social Welfare feel that this move has not gone far enough and these initiatives must be carried right through the public service. The media could be used to better effect, as could the highly successful and largely voluntary information centre system.
An area which features in Fianna Fáil discussion papers, one of which has been issued and the other which we hope to issue shortly, is freedom of information. For far too long even the most minor administrative matter has been treated as if it were a State secret. No harm can be done by throwing the light of public scrutiny into the darkest recesses of our administration. In so doing we can expose much that is good and, if the light of public scrutiny shows something which is bad, that is an additional benefit. Another area of information which we are examining is the issue of privacy on information in the public domain. None of us knows what lies in official files regarding ourselves, and in a democracy that is not healthy. At a minimum we have a right to know that any material on official files is accurate.
A number of countries have taken initiatives in this regard the aim of which has been to protect the citizen with regard to information in both public and private data banks. We would be well advised to consider the necessity for similar codes of law and practice here, and with the help of advisers we have done a considerable amount of work in that area. I am interested in the creation of privacy ombudsmen and privacy commissioners in a number of States and, we have examined some of the institutions that have such a service. Presumably in future these can be added to or expanded in conjunction with the Ombudsman's office.
Under consultation measures I would include all forms of consultation and consensus building, but not the type of public relations exercise at which the Government are so adept. We have gone some way towards improving consensus and consultation. Bunreacht na hÉireann is unique in that it includes in the electoral process for the Seanad recognition of interest groups. Over the years Fianna Fáil administrations have admitted themselves to consultation with the public or with the many members of the public the administration must deal with. However, more remains to be done with innovations aimed at improving the feedback in the public service. The boards of public corporations could with benefit become perhaps even more representative than they are. Watchdog councils in various administrative areas could be introduced with benefit. Finally, there is no reason why the State should not make more extensive use of public opinion research or public inquiries to get a true measure of the citizen's reaction to the State and the State schemes.
Under institutional matters, Ireland's public administration is desperately in need of improvement. The most obvious area for improvement is the level of centralisation of service. Since the sixties, Fianna Fáil have been committed to a policy of decentralisation and if we are the next Government, as we hope, this policy will be carried through to effect. Over the years decentralisation policies have been stymied by successive Coalitions and the result is that we have now one of the most highly centralised bureaucracies in the world. Centralised bureaucracies mean that citizens have problems. Decentralisation would be an institutional improvement.
Fianna Fáil created the Ombudsman's office in 1980. Our efforts to improve the systems available should not stop there. We would like to see improvements in in-house appeals systems and there is scope for extension of some of the existing appeals tribunals.
Perhaps a radical area of improvement is innovation in the attempt to reverse the trend of the overgrown bureaucracy. The type of innovation we have in mind here is the devolution of responsibility to agencies at sub-national level. There was much talk by the Government recently about the people's future and local government reform, and our document last year dealt with that. Our spokesman for the Environment dealt with it in part when he suggested that the time was ripe to consider devolving more functions to local government. Improvements need not stop there. Some activities should be hived off to voluntary agencies, for example, who operate much more closely to the system than does the administration itself. There is need under this heading also for a radical review of administrative procedures affecting business, particularly small business.
There can be no doubt that bureaucracy is a huge millstone around the neck of enterprise. It is to be hoped that Fianna Fáil's policy to lift that millstone will be implemented. In Government Fianna Fáil attempted without success to run a campaign to take some of the bureaucracy from the present system. I think both Government and Opposition are agreed that small business is the one area where we can change society. It is regrettable that when a person tries to set up a small business probably his first contact with the State is not through the IDA or any of the small State agencies helping him out but through PRSI, social welfare, VAT returns, PAYE returns, planning officials and everything taking away the incentive he requires. A Cheann Comhairle, am I confined to 35 minutes?
You must finish by 2.05 p.m.
Let me ask the Minister if the talks with the UPTCS broke down yesterday. Are those talks not taking place today? My understanding was that talks were continuing on the conciliation and arbitration difficulties. I did not intend to say anything about this if the negotiations were going on today, because I have always taken the view that, if negotiations are in progress, I do not comment. Will the Minister confirm that talks are taking place today or that they have broken down?
The talks broke down.
That is regrettable. Last week when I met the leaders of the UPTCS, having raised the issue in the House, I said to them then, that I hoped they would not extend their action into the beef classification area because this would cause major difficulties for the economy. I still hope they will not take any such action, but this is where the Government face a major difficulty. They must make a clear decision in this area before a major strike occurs which will affect the agricultural economy. Where do they stand on the issue of conciliation and arbitration?
I will not go into the teachers issue as it is past tense, but the argument the Government put forward on that was— based, I presume, on their document Building on Reality 1985-1987— that free collective bargaining was still their means of debate with the trade union movement, that they were not getting into a diktat arrangement with the trade unions. Perhaps their argument on the teachers issue had some credibility because the sums of money involved were astronomical and the Government argued, rightly, that they should be paid over a period, as I said during that dispute, but we differed on the question of retrospection.
In the case of the UPTCS and in other areas a huge amount of money is not involved. Perhaps it is £3 million, but effectively it will be something over £1 million. Nine claims were outstanding with that union and three were paid in full, of those three cases one was a Civil Defence radiation officer's pay during difficulties which followed the Russian explosion and radiation fallout therefrom. Only one individual was involved there and that person was paid a few weeks ago. There are also the people in this sensitive area of beef classification where there is now danger of a strike which would affect our exports. I hope that that will not happen. The small number of people in that area were paid. The third section were the navigation people at the airport. They were taken out by the Minister and his Department on the basis that that was a sensitive area. It would not have been in the State's interest to have a dispute with them because of the possible catastrophic effects.
Payment should be made in other areas where conciliation and arbitration awards apply. There is no need to bring in a system of ex gratia payments. When I spoke to the leaders of the unions concerned last week they were quite willing to have the arbitration award paid over a number of years and negotiated on that basis. The difficulty was that the Minister was laying down pre-conditions following the meeting which took place a fortnight ago at the end of a long week of negotiations. I appreciate that the people involved in the Department had had a difficult week and it seemed ridiculous to have a meeting on the Saturday night of a cup final.
The Minister, by laying down pre-conditions that negotiations would be based on the same arrangements as those applied to the teachers, is saying that the conciliation and arbitration methods practised for 35 years, which have kept peace and harmoney in the public service, are no longer applicable. These awards have been modified to such an extent that they bear no resemblance to the formula as originally conceived. The teachers' dispute is not over, both sides have agreed to differ for the moment. The Department of the Public Service were ordered by the Government to postpone the dispute by awarding partial payment to keep the door open. If conciliation and arbitration no longer exist, they will be playing a cat and mouse game in trying to postpone strikes by making partial payments which will keep people happy for 12 months or so. That is an extremely dangerous and irresponsible policy. It certainly has nothing to do with collective bargaining or respecting the conciliation and arbitration system which involves legislation passed by this House.
Civil servants and others in public sector employment should be aware of the Government's policy in regard to conciliation and arbitration because the Government cannot claim that it is based on money. Although Fianna Fáil delayed payments of arbitration awards they always paid them in full eventually. The public service always accepted this because they knew it was a fair and reasonable system.
The Minister said that the White Paper was the highlight of the year in his Department. He should know that the highlight of the year was that, for the first time in the history of the State, the whole public service went on strike. The Minister should have faced up to that and commented on it, which would have been helpful. Minister Boland and Minister Hussey treated all the sections very badly and teachers, civil servants, county council and corporation workers, road workers, hospital staff, officers of the court, prison staff and thousands of other grades went on strike to show what they thought of the Government. Although the Estimate for the year is a review of the happenings in that year, the Minister did not refer to that historic day or to an assessment of what caused it. That is regrettable because it cannot be swept under the carpet. I am sure that great hardship was also caused to officials in the Department because of Government policy over the last 12 months.
We all welcome short term, social employment schemes, AnCO training courses and so on because they provide employment. However, the 1,000 jobs which were supplied for young people in the public service are in the clerical assistant grade and a way of using cheap labour. Of course, they are a help in sections where the embargo on staff meant that they were grossly overworked. The Government should not claim credit in this regard as the staff involved cost much less than permanent staff.
There is an all-party agreement in relation to the report of the Ombudsman but now there is another report. I compliment the Ombudsman and his staff who do an extremely good job in highlighting anomalies in the system. We had a debate on this last year and the Minister of State assured the House that he and the Minister would try to ensure that their colleagues would implement some of the proposals contained in the report for that year.
The Department of the Public Service are responsible for the Ombudsman and I do not think that the reports of an officer established under legislation prepared by that Department should be just filed away. I understand that legislation is required in regard to 15 different matters, mainly in regard to social welfare arising from reports of the Ombudsman. What will happen if the Ombudsman, in the course of his report next year, complains again that legislation has not been introduced to deal with those problems? He has suggested changes in regard to the 1953 Act, social welfare benefits, Department of the Environment schemes, univerity scholarships, invalidity pensions and dole payments for farmers. What is the point of the Ombudsman putting forward suggestions for changes if no action is taken. Some Departments adopt the attitude that minor amendments should be left until the next comprehensive legislation is being prepared, but that is not good enough. I am sure that, with agreement between the Whips, the Opposition spokespersons, and the Minister, such legislation could be put through the House without much difficulty. We must remember that those anomalies cause real hardship. I am not referring to difficulties in regard to legal jargon but issues that are related to the 1953 Act. People are getting reduced pensions and, in some cases, no allowance because of anomalies in that Act. The money has been voted by the House and the anomalies highlighted by an officer of the State, but nothing has been done. I do not think we should treat the suggestions of the Ombudsman in that fashion. I have no doubt that he is very frustrated about this.
I should like to deal with the question of modern technology in Government Departments. Officials from a number of Departments are examining different computers and I understand that some officials have gone abroad to examine very expensive equipment. Is there a prospect that Departments will be changing from one eminent company to another? Will the Minister explain the role of the Department of the Public Service in assessing the type of equipment to be purchased by the different Departments? Is there a co-ordinating committee in the Department? Is an official responsible for deciding where the money is to be spent in regard to computers? The Minister will agree that these contracts are very costly and that modern technology advances annually. What may be suitable this year will almost certainly be superseded by a new invention next year.
It is important that an official in the Department should be responsible for co-ordinating all the information on computers. Is the Minister in a position to say if the officials from the Department who went on a fact finding mission to the United States were accompanied by an officer from the Department of the Public Service? I am not criticising that trip because it is right that such officials should investigate systems operating in other countries, but I am concerned that the approach on computerisation is unco-ordinated and that Departments operate on an ad hoc basis.
The negotiations on the 25th round were regrettable. The document, Building on Reality, did not help by insisting that there should not be any pay increase in 1986. The Minister for the Public Service on 14 August last was foolish to say that there would not be an increase in 1986. Later he tried to blame the unions, although at that stage the unions had not sought talks on the 25th round. The unions had agreed beforehand to discuss the 25th round at talks in October. I am not surprised that so many unions were slow to accept the Government's offer. What happened last August left a bad taste in the mouths of those involved. The new Minister would do well to try to mend the bridges broken at that time with the trade unions. A lot of the trust and goodwill that has been built up over the years between the Government and trade unions took a severe battering in recent months.
It is sad that we have had a national strike and that we are now involved in a major dispute with the UPTCS. The new Minister, and his Minister of State, should try to reach agreement with the unions on the difficult areas referred to in the White Paper. They should try to rebuild the bridges that were broken by their colleagues in Government. There is a lesson to be learned from all this. The rashness, sharpness and the hype of the last Minister for the Public Service proved to be a failure. I have no doubt that in his three years in that post he worked hard, but he has not anything to show for it. He has left a lot of work for other people to clean up. I do not think that can be disputed.
Recently the House discussed the group who are responsible for making top level appointments and, without reopening that debate, I should like to impress upon the Minister the need to appoint more females to senior posts. Some may say that there are not sufficient qualified females but that would have to be proved to me. It is extraordinary that so few females have been appointed to the top posts. I am sure those who make the appointments have their own reasons, but the matter is causing concern.
Progress in the area of welfare has been very slow and the Minister of State should give it his personal attention in an effort to create goodwill throughout the service. In any large organisation in the private or semi-State sectors welfare officers do very good work. Many employees have problems and they should be able to discuss them with such an official. There are many well-qualified social welfare workers available and we should try to attract them to the post. If necessary the embargo should be lifted to appoint such a person.
Minister Boland gave many assurances in regard to assessments that were taking place in Government Departments. Is the Minister in a position to tell us if the embargo still remains? Have some grades been hit harder than others? Are the lower grades suffering? It appears that the Government do not have a clear policy in regard to the embargo. In some areas of the service hundreds of millions of pounds are outstanding and staff have to work on Saturdays and Sundays to try to collect it. Some of the staff have had nervous breakdowns and that is not surprising. The system is in a mess and must be reviewed. Will the Minister give us some information on the position in regard to the embargo?
Unfortunately, the Minister made a speech which was very vague on a number of issues. He failed to address the major subject of industrial relations in the Department of the Public Service and made no policy statement. I hope he will not evade telling us when we are to see the legislation to implement the Government's document, or is it just another historic document?
I call the Minister of State, who has 15 minutes to conclude the debate.
I fully appreciate the difficulty of the Opposition spokesman in speaking in this debate. Through the rhetoric comes a grudging admiration for the work that has been done, the progress made, the solid achievements of the present administration. At the same time, I understand that the nature of politics is such that he must try to nitpick here and there, to try to justify the position of the Opposition.
Let me tell him frankly that if he has any seriously researched and argued points of view as to how, in any specific areas of the public service, in the common interests of all of us and the people of the State improvements might be brought about, I am quite prepared and open to listening to such views. I shall consider the implementation, after examination, of any such proposals which will appear capable of implementation. The Opposition will recognise that it is difficult to extend that offer into the area of vague generalities, which is so often the message we received from the other side of the House.
Deputy Ahern spoke about the history of the effort to form the public service and what was done in 1969, or not done in 1973 or 1977. Nothing is to be gained by rehashing old history here. It is quite clear that in the last couple of years a solid, serious attempt has been made to cope with the problems, culminating in the publication of the White Paper and the decision of the Government to implement that White Paper, followed by the steps that have since been taken to put those decision into effect. Those are the facts and, as I said in my opening speech, it is my intention to continue building on the progress which has been made since the publication of that document. The Deputy referred to the position as regards the legislation. That legislation has been drafted and is at present with the parliamentary draftsman. There is quite an amount of pressure on that official at this stage because of the very heavy programme of the Government. I am very anxious, indeed, that this legislation will be available for circulation as soon as possible, but I have to understand the situation of the parliamentary draftsman. I cannot say at this stage when the Bill will be ready for circulation, but can only reiterate that we are making every effort to ensure that it will be ready to be brought before this House at the earliest possible date.
On the question of pay and numbers, again it is very difficult to understand the specific position of the Opposition. This is highlighted to some degree by comments made by Deputy Ahern in relation to temporary clerk typists. It would he helpful to the House and to the country to have a clear statement of the position of the Opposition on the question of numbers and pay generally. Let us take the broader issues. The public service increased by 40,000 under the Fianna Fáil administration of 1977 to 1981. It is now recognised that that policy was a disaster. Is it their proposal in relation to members to implement that approach again in the future? Or are the Opposition suggesting that the efforts the present Government are making to trim numbers in the public service and so relieve the taxpayers do not find favour with them? Alternatively, is it their approach to again revert to the discredited policy implemented from 1977 on and inflate the numbers to such a degree as to cause an absolutely enormous additional burden to be placed on the taxpayer?
With all due respect, the Opposition cannot have it both ways. This House and, indeed, the country are entitled to an answer to these questions. We have stated our position very clearly. As I told the House, it is my intention to continue the efforts to reduce numbers in the public service while at the same time maintaining the effectiveness of that service to the public. It is no advantage to the country to have additional permanent and pensionable jobs created in the public service as happened under the Fianna Fáil administration at enormous cost to the taxpayer. This, by the way is a continuing cost and it will continue for decades ahead. Of course, if there is a specific need demonstrated, jobs will be created. As I pointed out also, that does not imply in any way that every effort is not being made by the Government to explore the possibilities of job creation despite this restrictive approach. The success which we have had in some of these areas, with job sharing and career breaks, has shown that we have been able to create many additional jobs at little or no cost to the taxpayer.
The same confusion must arise on the Opposition's stand in regard to pay. Is it that there should be a totally flaithiúleach approach with regard to the taxpayers money, or are the Opposition aware of the position in relation to public finances which has become so obvious over the years? Are they aware of the efforts that we have made to correct the extravagances of the past and restore order to the public finances? Is the wink and nod approach now being adopted by the Opposition one which they will follow up to the end of this Dáil? Are they in favour of an approach which involves corrective measures in relation to the public finances, balanced at the same time by an attempt to adopt a fair and reasonable approach to employees in the public service? I just do not understand the approach adopted by the Opposition in this regard.
Our position is quite clear. The basic approach to the 25th round negotiations was to reach agreement on a general round increase which would also incorporate an agreed framework for the implementation of special or grade increases. The Government, like any other large employer, had to prepare their budget in the clear knowledge of the overall effects of pay increases, both special and general. It followed that any agreement had to entail compromise and the attempt to arrive at a mix relating to the 25th round with special increases and other pay issues. It was in this context that the eventual package emerged involving the general increase of 7 per cent and the phasing in of special increases.
The package now on offer is much more attractive for the staff because of the major change in the outlook for inflation over the period of the agreement. Inflation is now projected to fall substantially this year and virtually disappear next year. When account is taken of the carry over increase of 1.5 per cent this year which arises from the effects of the 24th round increase in the public service it will be seen that the package on offer will mean a significant real increase in living standards for public servants both this year and next.
I must again emphasise that many significant groups of civil servants have elected to accept the pay deal on offer. It was learned yesterday that the Prison Officers Association have now indicated acceptance of the deal. I would urge those other groups who have not yet done so, particularly those groups in the agriculture and local authority areas who have difficulty in accepting the deal, to consider the overall position of the public finances and the existing heavy burden on the taxpayer. Above all, I plead to their undoubted sense of public spiritness which has been shown on many occasions in the past.
This House will appreciate that Government policy in this area is constrained by cost factors. The Government are providing the additional money of £70 million to apply the terms of the package throughout the public service. Any improvement in the package will have to be financed either through increased taxation or further borrowing. However, there is a general acceptance in society that neither of these options is available. I would again ask those who have not accepted the deal to do so at this stage.
There have been a number of other issues raised which I have had an opportunity only to touch on. I find it difficult to understand the approach of the Opposition on the question of the Ombudsman. I have been in touch with my colleagues in the different Departments where specific points have been raised by the Ombudsman. I will be getting a report back from them and we will have an opportunity in this House of discussing the 1985 report in the not too distant future. To suggest that some of the proposals of the Ombudsman can be put through as minor amendments of no consequence and without proper consideration, with all due respects, is ludicrous. Let us take one of the primary areas touched on by the Ombudsman in both reports, the question of changes in the social welfare system, particularly contributory pensions. The fact of the situation is that the implementation of that proposal — Deputy Ahern may have his own views on the perspective and scale — would cost £55 million in 1987. I have asked my colleagues to look carefully not just on that proposal but on all other proposals of the Ombudsman. It is ridiculous to suggest these can be put through as minor amendments. That is, I suggest, a misleading approach.
Deputy Ahern also referred to the strike on 15 October last. It is far more proper to concentrate on the fact that my predecessor secured agreement with many public service unions on the terms of the pay deal. It is more important to concentrate on the present positive situation not on what occured on 15 October last year. I do not think anything is to be gained or served by harping back on that. That is the reason I did not see any great point in making any reference to it in my speech.
On the question of technology, I explained in my speech the approach being adopted by my Department. The information management advisory service advises Departments on their computer plans. The DPS are responsible for approving expenditure.
On the question of the visit to the United States, I am not aware if any of my officials were involved. The approach within the DPS is the sensible and responsible one. I fully agree with Deputy Ahern that, if it is felt it is in the public interest to travel within or outside the country to acquire more information or inspect systems, that approach is justified.
I have to conclude at this stage and, hopefully, we will have the opportunity of going into some of these items in more detail on another occasion.
Item 47, Vote 20: Office of the Minister for the Public Service——
Are we not operating under new rules this week?
A new system of questions and answers. Sorry, Minister, questions and answers now for one and a half hours. A new Standing Order.
The reason I did not interrupt the Minister of State, even though he was refusing to answer any of my questions and talking nonsense, is that I am entitled under the new system to ask questions.
I am calling on the Minister and I must mention there was no order.
There is an order of the House which allows me to ask questions.
For five minutes, Deputy, and the Minister has five minutes to reply.
On a point of order, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, would I be in order at this stage to move other Votes which technically require to be moved so that the Opposition Deputy can——
We have to dispose of Vote 20 first.
Can we dispose of it and come back to it under the Standing Order?
I am sorry, Deputy. I thought there was no one else offering. I accept the Standing Order gives the Deputy five minutes. I had moved in the direction of the Minister concluding the debate on Vote 20.
You did not look over here.
I did look over there and the only Deputy there was Deputy Ahern.
You overlooked the new Standing Order, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
I do not mind if the Minister wishes to move the other Votes.
Can we get agreement on Vote 20?
I want to ask a question.
The Deputy can ask a question.
The Opposition are fully within their rights. There is a change in Standing Orders:
I accept that, Minister. There is a little bit of confusion.
I just accept that I cannot be in two places at the one time.
I accept that, Minister.
Therefore, I accept the ruling of the House.
I asked a number of questions, when I spoke earlier on, to which I did not get many answers. I would remind the Minister of State that he is the Minister of State at the Department of the Public Service. He and his officials have the job of stating policy on the embargo, on pay and on conciliation and arbitration. That is what they are paid for. It is not the Opposition's job to formulate policy and to try and correct the mess the Government are creating, particularly the appalling way that the Department of the Public Service have behaved over the past 12 months.
It was from that Department that the diktat statements were issued last August telling people that they were to get no increases in 1985. It was the statements of the Minister in that Department which led to the first national strike ever. It is not good enough to say that that is all part of history and that it has all gone. It has not gone. We still have a major strike following the performance of the Minister for the Public Service. The whole 35 year principle, an agreement which has served this country and public servants very well, has been broken, amended and almost ruined. It is not good enough for the Minister to stand up and look across and say that the Opposition should have a clear policy. The Opposition's job is to question and analyse Government policy. It is the fact that we have had a change of Government policy and change of Ministers and musical chairs which has led to these difficulties.
I would ask the Minister to give his reply as to what is the policy on the embargo. The Minister should answer the numerous questions which were not answered. I accept the Minister's position that he is new in the job and does not know what has happened over the last few years because he had another portfolio. But the Minister's predecessor indicated that there were reviews at departmental level and a big survey going on which was going to give certain information. We were to get the assessments, allocations and complements in this House. Is that true or is it not true? Have there been studies of the complements of various Departments?
I presume that people who gave replies to these questions are the same people who are giving advice to the Minister. What is the position on the embargo? What are the results of the assessments which I was told are taking place by the Minister for the Public Service? I am not in any way confused. I am quoting from the information which I was given as to what was going on in the Department. If that is confusing the Minister, then his difficulty does not lie on this side of the House. I have raised a number of serious matters and the reply on about six occasions was that the Minister was confused with the Opposition.
The office of the Ombudsman was set up to remove anomalies and to help citizens with difficulties. If the office does not report and action is not taken it is no use to the citizens. The Minister and the Government cannot have it both ways. These anomalies are clearly set down and action should be taken. The figure of £55 million was mentioned but I did not know about it because it was not set out by the Government. I do not understand the Government's policy. Is it to look at the areas that have not got a great cost factor and look at the others some other day?
The difficulties in the Department for the past 12 months were not created by officials. They were created by the Minister's colleagues in Government and by their approach to the whole question of industrial relations. They tried to walk over people. That policy has clearly failed and that is why it is not included in the Minister's script. He cannot stand over the appalling mess that was made of the 25th round negotiations, the conciliation and arbitration and the damage done not just for this year but for years to come. A sleight of hand approach was taken to try to postpone all the industrial chaos which has been caused by the activities of the Minister in the last year until after the next general election. That is the real policy that is being adopted in the negotiations.
I reject completely the remarks of the Opposition spokesman in regard to the pay policy of the Government. Let us be quite clear. The basic agreement on the 25th round was secured in agreement with the public service unions. It was not foisted on them by diktat. Admittedly, the results of certain arbitration awards are amended or revised as in the case of the teachers. These are being amended in accordance with the framework agreed with the public service unions. That is the clear position. If the Opposition want to try to create confusion on this they may feel that is their job.
The position of the Government on the embargo is quite clear. I answered questions in this House in this regard and I am surprised that the Deputy is not clear as to what the Government's policy is. The embargo continues to run in the Civil Service but it is proposed to replace it by a staffing target approach. Negotiations and discussions are continuing from the point of view of establishing that approach in 1986. I can certainly confirm that detailed discussions are taking place in this regard and quite rightly. How else could one fairly establish proper staffing targets unless the requirements of each of the Departments, some who need a little more staff and some a little less, were studied in great detail? That has been going on at official and ministerial level to finalise these discussions. I hope to be in a position to have that done in the near future. Obviously it requires a little time. Otherwise the job would not be done properly. That is our policy. As in the pay area is it fair for me to ask the Opposition; what is your policy? Is it to increase the public service by 40,000 as they did between 1977 and 1981? If so, the people of this country and of this House are entitled to know about it.
We had a debate in this House on the first report of the Ombudsman and we will have a further opportunity for debate in relation to the 1985 report. The Ombudsman is doing very fine work and the report bears that out. In regard to individual problems which have been referred to him it is quite clear that the establishment of this office by the Government has been an entirely successful initiative. It is also quite clear that the Ombudsman and his staff are making a major contribution to public administration. In regard to various proposals from the Ombudsman where he highlights anomalies and asks to have them considered, that is being done. The point I made to Deputy Ahern is that some of the proposals have been implemented. Others require the most detailed consideration because they are not, as suggested by Deputy Ahern, matters of minor consequence. Some of them have quite a substantial price tag. With public finances in the position they are in that cannot be ignored. I can confirm to this House that the Government are very happy with the initiative which they took in establishing the office of the Ombudsman. It has been an enormous success. The views of the Ombudsman are obviously taken into account and given full consideration. We may have an opportunity to have further discussions on this and other areas in the future in which I will be glad to participate.
The Minister has been very contradictory in the statements he made in the past ten to 15 minutes. I want to refer to the question of the Ombudsman. We all recognise that the appointment of the Ombudsman was very welcome. When this legislation was going through, the Government pointed out that at long last here was an opportunity where many anomalies could be corrected. One of the major anomalies which emerged from the Ombudsman's report in 1985, and the Minister referred briefly to it, is the question of the average of pension contributions which has disastrous effects on thousands of people over 66 years of age and who do not qualify for old aged pensions simply because they may be one contribution per year short. This may be through no fault of their own. Many of these people were not notified officially at the time of the discontinuance of their contributions of the rights they would lose. This is one of the greatest scandals as far as this situation is concerned. The Ombudsman reported very fully on this.
The Minister quoted a figure of £55 million. I do not know where that figure came from. I recall putting a question to the Minister some time ago and, as far as I can recall, the figure was in the region of £11 million to £12 million. Perhaps the Minister will elaborate on how the £55 million is made up. The public service has been in chaos engineered by the policy of the Government. On the question of public service pay, it is obvious that the cause of the trouble was the confrontation beginning when the Government decided on a pay freeze. The freeze was announced in a number of statement's by different Ministers who made it clear that there would be no compromise, that there would be a freeze, and that was it.
That was the beginning of the discontent among public service employees, and it has gone on since. The Minister spoke about what Fianna Fáil did. He should concentrate on what this Government have been doing in the past few months. On the 25th round they started at zero; then it became 3 per cent; and then they offered all rates up to 7 per cent. Then we had the £35 million, another turn around. All these things have caused chaos. This morning the Minister of State came in with a bureaucratic brief and later he did not answer questions put to him or tell the House what he intends to do about public service pay. These are very important questions. In recent talks with the public service he has been budgeting what the next Government will do and that the door is not closed. He is once more laying the foundations for further confrontation in the public service where people have given so much effort and loyalty over the years.
I repeat that we should like to know where the £55 million will come from and the Minister's policies in regard to public service pay in future and if the Government will be going back on agreements entered into.
The Deputy has been concentrating on one point in the Ombudsman's report. Obviously, this can be gone into in greater details when the Dáil will be discussing the next report. I will deal with one of the Deputy's questions from recollection, the matter of the £55 million. It is estimated that 1,700 people are affected because they did not pay social welfare contributions between 1953 and 1974. The estimated cost, at 1987 prices, is £55 million. My recollection is that the amount can be broken down and that a price tag of £5 million could be put on it for 1987. It will continue according to actuarial figures up to the year 2017 when the cost will tail off. The actuarial calculation is that up to the year 2017 the total would be £55 million at 1987 prices. I am not without sympathy for those involved in this——
Sympathy is no good.
It is important that the price tag should be looked at, and the Opposition should not simply say we should have it without any thought for the taxpayers.
The Minister should have given accurate figures.
I made the full figures available during the debate on the last Ombudsman's report and I will have no hesitation whatever in checking them to see that my recollection is accurate. The Commission on Social Welfare have been sitting and this is one of the items they will have looked at. Their deliberations are about to be completed and we will have an opportunity to look at their report at the appropriate time.
I find it impossible to understand the attitude of the Opposition in this respect. Deputy Brady spoke entirely of our position in regard to pay. Would it not be more helpful if the Opposition were to recommend that the unions who have so far not agreed to accept the 25th round offer should do so? Is it chaos the Opposition are looking for instead of acknowledging the significant achievement of the Government in securing agreement which many poblic service unions have endorsed? There is no chaos in the Civil Service and there is a duty on public representatives to give every possible encouragement to the unions to approve the proposals and the agreement between the Government and the public service unions.
