Vol. 400 No. 3
Before Question Time I was attempting to identify the reasons for the introduction of this Bill. I was attempting also to identify ways and means of avoiding a repetition of the circumstances leading to our present national debt. Many of the decisions taken by previous Administrations of the same political ilk——
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
I just want to point out again that this situation should never have been arrived at. I am not making a political point, but hurt and indignation emanated from the other side of the House when I mentioned the reasons for the introduction of this legislation. I would remind the House that the agency that is being set up will have serious responsibilities.
That is the fourth time we have heard that.
For instance, how will they deal with a situation such as that which arose in July 1981?
That is what the Deputy said at 1.30 p.m.
At that time there were not sufficient funds in the Exchequer to pay the public service.
Does the Deputy not feel a bit of a fool? I will leave rather than listen to that buffoonery.
It should be nothing new to the Minister. He is quite well used to dealing with that — and I bear no ill-will towards him for making that comment. In 1981 there were not sufficient funds to pay the public service. Before Question Time I was talking about confidence and how to improve the position. The Minister for Finance opposite is a great advocate of this and I fully agree with him——
The Deputy would not know anything about it.
I fully agree that it is most important that there is confidence in the people who manage the finances of the country. A lesson was given in how to sabotage public confidence between 1982 and 1987. Do not tempt me to go back over the various aspects of the erosion of confidence during that time.
Take your medicine like any good player.
A deliberate attempt was made by the then Opposition to sabotage what the Government were trying to do, in the full knowledge that they were responsible for creating the position which had got out of control and from which they ran away. There were not sufficient funds at that stage to pay——
There is no quorum in the House, and this debate will not continue unless a quorum is kept in the House.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 members being present,
Deputy Durkan will address the Chair.
The problem could have been arrested much more quickly and with a lot less sacrifice on the part of the people. If there had been a little responsibility on the part of the then major Opposition party, it would have been very quickly reflected in a growth of public confidence, but that did not happen. However, when the same party found themselves on the other side of the Chamber, they were very quickly to call upon all those in the political arena to assist them in restoring, as they said, public confidence. They were very glad to rely on the assistance they received from this side of the House in order to ensure a sound financial footing.
The Chair would like to hear Deputy Durkan speaking about the National Treasury Management Agency.
I am referring to the reason for the setting up of the agency. The Government must accept responsibility for the problems that arose during the period 1982 to 1987. There is also a responsibility on the Opposition. Between 1977 and 1981 the Government parties had a responsibility from which they ran away. The cause of a great deal of problems at that time was the national think tank association who said they were thinking of ways and means of planning the economy for the future but what they were doing was thinking of ways and means of getting into Government to manage that economy.
The one thing I resent — and it annoys many people — is to hear pontification by Ministers of Government on how they have restored confidence and how the economy has recovered and on all the great things that have happened in the last couple of years. The same group of people said the opposite just a few years ago. They encouraged the people to proceed in a different direction.
Could you give us some of your thoughts on the National Treasury Management Agency?
Indeed, I will. Between 1982 and 1987, when I sat over there on those benches, where those Members are now reluctantly sitting——
On a point of order, one can understand——
Leave that to me. I would like to remind the House that records will show that, so far as the Chair is concerned, lightning can strike twice in the one place. Deputy Durkan, without interruption.
There is no quorum in the House.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
It would have been of assistance in averting the situation that arose if the Opposition at that time were prepared to use their influence for reasons other than purely political expediency.
Perhaps the Deputy would leave history behind and come to the present. The Deputy will have to speak to what is in the Bill or what the Deputy thinks should be in it.
I have been speaking to what I think should be in the Bill.
The Deputy will be free to look at the recorded statement. I think he will see that he has treated more of the historical than the present and he has made scant reference to what is in the Bill or what he thinks should be in the Bill. Perhaps, he would apply himself with greater diligence to doing that now.
I do not think that what you say is a fair appraisal of what has taken place. I have replied, in detail and so far as I can, to the various points that were raised by people sitting on that side of the House and they were not ruled out of order.
They were.
I am sorry, they were not. I am not asking for any special treatment but I would like to be treated equally with those on the opposite side of the House. Those on the opposite side of the House were free to come into this House and say all the things counter to what I have said.
The Deputy appreciates that the Chair, having advised Deputies of the Standing Order in the matter of interruption, applied the rules of the Chair. If the Deputy desisted from acknowledging the interruptions he would not have given problems to the Chair. I would ask the Deputy to address the Chair and to leave interruptions to me — I will answer them — as they are my responsibility.
I should say that I did not reply to any of the interruptions at any stage during the time I was speaking except when the quorum bell was sounding.If you check the record you will find that that is true.
I was attempting to remind the House that we need not be in this situation if different action was taken and we may well be in this situation again. I will refer you to the final paragraph of the Minister's speech, which states:
Section 12 is also worth mentioning in particular. This provision effectively nominates the chief executive of the agency as the accounting officer for the management of the national debt. This will allow the Dáil, through the Public Accounts Committee if desired, to engage in a detailed examination of this large item of expenditure.
This is the greatest fob off I can think of. We are now arriving at a position where this unfortunate chief executive and his officials will be lined up and quizzed as to how he or she is managing the national debt. That will be most peculiar. This official — a civil servant or somebody from private enterprise — who will be paid a salary, who has no culpability in creating this national debt, will be told by the Government and the Minister for Finance: "This is your responsibility and any group of people who wish may inquire how you are progressing in your job. If you do not do your job well then I will have to take action". Naturally, that would be the direction in which that situation would progress in the ordinary way, since the Public Accounts Committee has been mentioned. I see that as a total divesting of responsibility on the part of the Government, handing it over to an unfortunate victim or victims who in turn will be quizzed regularly by anybody who has a right — and that is virtually everybody — to inquire about the national debt and they will be asked to account for themselves. This group of people who have no culpability whatsoever in the matter will be held responsible for the national debt.
What is the reason?
If the situation which caused this problem was created——
This is terrible.
——in such a blasé fashion and with such a lack of preparedness on that side of the House to accept any responsibility for it, how will this unfortunate agency be treated in the future? Will the Government accept responsibility if something goes wrong with the agency — on which will be foisted the responsibility for the national debt? Will they come to the front line and say: "We accept full responsibility, this is not very good news, nobody likes it and it is not good for public confidence." Will they hang the unfortunate agency out to dry? Will they set them afloat or adrift or will they let them have the full responsibility? I think that is what will happen. I do not propose to speak any longer because there are some other speakers here who are anxious to become involved in this debate. I know that Deputy Callely is anxiously waiting to participate.
I am glad the Deputy realises that.
I would be more than anxious to facilitate him. I would hope——
On a point of order, since I am the next speaker I wish to inquire if it is safe to make a telephone call at this stage?
The Chair will decide who will speak next.
It would take Deputy Rabbitte.
Deputy Rabbitte might not attempt to introduce the behaviour of the old L & H, with which we are all familiar.
I would hope that a valuable lesson has been learned by the fact that we have arrived at this juncture and that in future there would be some system of national planning, a national planning board or whatever. There was one during the life of the previous Government.
That is right. Did the Deputy see the recommendations they came up with?
I will be benign and I will not respond in the way that immediately comes to mind on that issue.
Please do.
I will say this: there is a case for a continuity agency — everyone is suggesting NESC but they would not play a national planning role — that would span the period between Governments and which would span the period where a Government are scaling down towards the end of their term of office. Politics being what it is, the natural tendency is to draw every shot out of the barrel and as a result cause a downturn in the economy, perhaps, two years later. That causes a serious problem. If there was a planning agency somewhere——
Let them run it.
——that would alert the people to speak out and alert them as to what was likely to happen rather than running into problems two, three or four years later. There is a tendency for Governments — this is true of Governments in other countries as well — to become that bit more reckless and consious of the electorate mid-term and attempt to do things which are politically palatable but which often are also very expensive. Unfortunately, somebody else has to pick up the tab.
The tagging on of some kind of planning department to this agency might be worth considering. If a case can be made for giving the National Treasury Management Agency the responsibility to manage the national debt perhaps a case can also be made for giving them or some other agency the responsibility to take steps to prevent the debt from rising. I hope that this organisation will be apolitical with the authority to speak out. If we were to do this we might prevent problems occuring.
I would like to see Members on the opposite side of the House face up to the position which obtained when they left office in 1981. I cannot over-emphasise the fact that there was insufficient finances in the treasury at that time to pay the teachers on their return after the summer holidays or to pay the Garda. When they left office the national treasury was in a total shambles with the result that an emergency budget had to be introduced within two weeks of the new Government taking over. I hope we have learned our lesson and do not go down that road again. I hope all Governments will ensure, right up to the time they leave office, that everything is kept in order and there is continuity.
Like every other Deputy in the House, I am aware that one of the ways an outgoing Government can hamper their successors is by delaying the preparation of plans for by-passes, roads, motorways, water and sewerage schemes and so on with the result that they may be tied up for two years. Each time we put down a question in 1981 we were told that revised drawings had been submitted and that changes had been requested with the result that the work involved could take up to four years to complete. I have to say that the Government of the day got no help from the Opposition who left office in the knowledge that nothing could come to fruition for at least two years.
In case any Members on the opposite side of the House thinks for one moment that I can think of nothing else, let me assure them that I can but I will be gracious at this stage and——
Share your time.
——conclude and share my time with some of the Members opposite who, no doubt, will now be able to look at the question of the national debt in a different light and in the knowledge that they were responsible for the debt and are attempting to hive off that responsibility to an unfortunate group of civil servants who had no responsibility in the matter.
Deputy Callely rose.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, is the Deputy making his maiden speech or may we interrupt him?
As the Deputy is well aware, this is not my maiden speech. Unlike the previous speaker, I will try to stick to what is contained in the Bill before the House, the National Treasury Management Agency Bill, 1990. In acknowledging that this is an important Bill let me say that I am greatly concerned that an agency such as this has to be set up in the first place. However, given the magnitude of the national debt, which stands at £25 billion, this matter warrants special attention. As we all know, the debt will not go away and will be with us for many years to come. The previous speaker referred to those who he claimed were responsible for the debt. However in doing so he was very selective. It is fair to say that during the term of office of the disastrous Fine Gael-Labour Coalition Government from 1982-87 this country walked a tightrope. We witnessed massive borrowings, high interest rates, high unemployment and no economic growth. That Coalition Government was led by a crusader who stated that this aim was financial rectitude. That infamous Fine Gael-Labour Coalition Government——
Is there a script?
The Deputy may not have been here earlier on but I would like to——
Call a quorum.
Deputy Mitchell, it is not in order to address anybody from the position you are in. Would you allow me to proceed? I was about to announce to Deputy Farrelly that if he had been here earlier on he would have discovered that the mood of the House is such that the Chair is intent on keeping order and minimising interruptions and that there is a final resort which he would not want to apply against a friend such as Deputy Farrelly. That is all he would say about it.
I am well aware of the way in which it works.
I hope the Deputy would not want to see it put into action.
I have been there.
Is the Deputy calling for a quorum?
No, just a circulation of the script.
I am afraid the Opposition do not want to hear what I have to say. Under the Fine Gael-Labour Coalition Government, the GNP-debt ratio rose from 94 per cent to 130 per cent while the national debt went from £12.5 billion to £25 billion.
The Deputy's party multiplied it by four some years previously.
I might say to Deputy Callely that he is not obligated to follow the standard set by previous speakers. He is obligated to treat what is proposed in the legislation or indicate perhaps how the legislation is inadequate in respect of what he would like to see in it. As far as possible long dissertations into the past do not help in either of the regards to which I have referred.
That is precisely what I intend doing. However the previous speaker invited speakers on this side of the House to answer some of his questions.
The worst thing the Deputy could do is respond to him.
Having regard to the fact that we are speaking about the National Treasury Management Agency and the national debt, let me focus on one or two years. In 1984, Government borrowings amounted to £1,825 million; in 1985, the figure stood at £2,015 million while in 1986 it stood at £2,145 million, a grand total of £6,000 million. We must compare the years 1984-86 with the years 1987-89, when there was a total borrowing of £2,884 million, less than half. It is plain who have the right policies and the right approach to the management of the national debt.
On a point of order, I want to correct the statement the Deputy is making. Fine Gael were obviously in power between 1987 and 1989.
Deputy Cotter, I thought that a man of your intellect would have discovered by now what is a point of order and what is an interruption. I remind you how the Chair intends to deal with interruptions.
When Fianna Fáil, the republican party, came into office in 1987 we inherited an awful mess from the infamous Coalition Government due to their failed policies. Fianna Fáil had the courage and guts to introduce the necessary measures to put this country back on the map. The economic recovery over the past three years has seen a reduced borrowing requirement——
Is the Deputy reading from notes and is that permitted by Standing Orders? Is he reading from a script provided by the press office?
Deputy Mitchell appreciates and has often indulged in the practice. I am surprised that he would endeavour to make a point of order out of something which is so irrelevant.
On a point of order, is it in order for a Deputy to read from a script?
He is in perfect order in consulting his notes. Deputy Mitchell knows that.
It is quite different from reading a script, which is against Standing Orders. I think it is a script written by Deputy Roche.
On a point of order, Deputy Callely is quite within the rules of this House in consulting notes regarding points of statistical information.
Reading a script for Deputy Roche is a different matter.
Is Deputy Roche threatening to speak?
We have seen a reduced borrowing requirement over the past three years due to the success of the Programme for National Recovery. Its policies and strategies have turned the country around. Progress has been made over a broad spectrum and the solid foundations for further progress have been laid.
Previous speakers mentioned unemployment.I will do everything in my power to ensure that this country will provide a future for us all, particularly our youth, with good employment prospects, acceptable tax levels and a healthy environment with a good quality of life. Too many of our young people have had to look overseas for employment. Many of my own young friends and young people from my constituency of Dublin North-Central, able, educated and highly qualified, are unable to obtain suitable employment and have little choice but to emigrate. This must be corrected.
Since Fianna Fáil returned to office in 1987 we have seen some encouraging results in our employment figures but we have a long way to go. Total employment grew by 10,000 in the two years to April 1989.
This is Deputy Roche's speech.
We have extended the social employment scheme and introduced new training schemes. A strong recovery in the private sector has resulted in employment growth in building, construction and manufacturing. The Programme for National Recovery should ensure that this employment will continue on a steady path. A continued increase in employment by substantial economic growth is the only way forward. The programme has made major contributions to the improved climate for investment and confidence in the economy.Economic growth has attracted many new industries to set up in Ireland. We have witnessed many foreign investors coming here and creating major job opportunities. In my constituency I have seen great benefits from foreign investors.We have also seen investment by the State and developments and initiatives such as the Custom House Docks site, which has greatly benefited employment.There will be at least 2,000 new jobs by 1990 on that site. About 100 projects are ready to move into the centre. It is a terrific success and long may it continue. Members opposite will agree that the Programme for National Recovery is working. We have seen economic growth, investment and increased employment.
The national debt is a major burden on the economy. There has been some improvement since 1987 due to the controlling and managing of the public finances, yet £25 billion is a heavy burden. Our debt is one of the highest among OECD countries and interest payments are in excess of £2 billion. This debt has enormous consequences for all of us. The Minister referred to the debt as representing £23,000 per head for each person at work or a figure in excess of £7,000 in respect of every man, woman and child. That is unacceptable. Since 1987 we have seen real budgetary discipline and I compliment the Minister for Finance, Deputy Reynolds, and his predecessor, the former Deputy MacSharry, as well as the Department of Finance on the excellent progress in recent years in controlling and managing our national debt.
A number of staff who work in the Department of Finance with responsibility for foreign borrowing have been poached and recruited by the private sector. One must ask why?
Because they are not paid enough.
Perhaps the Deputy is right. The Minister has said he will have to pay market rates for the right people and devise an organisational structure which they can be encouraged to join in order to give of their best in the interests of us all.
In relation to the development of the financial services market and the Custom House Docks centre, we have seen a big demand for specialised personnel, who are referred to as the wizards of the financial service markets. No one doubts that the personnel in the Department of Finance, especially handling the debt of the magnitude it is and dealing with foreign banks, foreign markets, currency exchange and so on, must have very broad experience and knowledge of the financial markets. Maybe this is why the private sector attempt to poach these staffs. They must be very valuable assets to the private sector.
In the Department of Finance a team have been working on the management and control of the national debt but this team has been broken from time to time by poaching and recruitment into the private sector. Are we to sit back behind closed doors and allow this to continue? Are we to allow our team to be broken, the team who have made good progress in the past years, or can we do something to remedy that? Do we want more flexibility for people who deserve higher salary structures and rewards in the way of promotion, bonuses and so on?
The expertise is there and available and we should utilise it if we can get it. Specialised financial personnel have proven very cost effective and create massive savings for the private sector where they are working, and we should avail of that in the public sector. We should not be the losers. We must attract the right personnel by offering the right package. This agency are being set up to ensure that we can, without public service restrictions, recruit and attract the expertise to work under the Minister for Finance but with increased flexibility. The new agency, however, will be working under the control of the Minister through his delegating to them the borrowing and debt management functions, without diminishing any of the Minister's responsibilities or powers.
I have no doubt that this agency established to focus solely on the expertise area of borrowing and managing the national debt, will be successful. The Minister in his speech referred to the significant and valuable savings that can be made and he said even 1 per cent shaved off our interest payments would yield £20 million per year in savings. Given the right expertise, the right personnel and the right techniques, I envisage greater savings than 1 per cent. Is it not right that we can avail of those savings?
On Second Stage I will not go into the different sections of the Bill, but I would like to touch on a couple of them. Section 4 refers to the agency's functions and it is quite clear in section 4 (3) and (4) that the Minister will be in control and will give the agency direction and guidelines. I would say the previous speaker was not aware of that section of the Bill because he felt the Minister was passing the blame over to a separate entity, a separate agency.
Section 5 of the Bill provides that the Government by order delegate to the agency the borrowing and debt functions. We will have an opportunity to tease out the provisions of that section on Committee Stage. Section 5 answers many questions asked by some of the previous speakers.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
I welcome the provisions in sections 8 and 9 which will set up the advisory committee who will assist the chief executive and provide for rewarding the CEO and staff of the agency.
I have no doubt that this agency will be a tremendous success and will be of great benefit to the people of Ireland in getting to grips with the problem of our national debt. I question the attitude of some Opposition speakers to the Bill. Deputy Joe Doyle welcomed the setting up of the agency but I am not too sure about the position of other Opposition speakers in regard to the agency.
I want to refer to the record of the Minister for Finance, Deputy Albert Reynolds, who introduced the Bill. When he was Minister for Posts and Telegraphs in the early eighties he pressed for improvements in our telecommunications system and ensured that approximately £21 billion was made available to bring it into the 20th century. These improvements had a spin off effect in attracting foreign investors here, enabling businesses to expand etc. When he was Minister for Energy he oversaw the laying of the Dublin-Cork gas pipeline.He ensured that the pipeline was completed within the time specified and came in within budget. When he was Minister for Industry and Commerce in 1987 he faced up to the changes the 1992——
Did the Deputy get that information from the Minister's CV?
Deputy Cotter will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate. I would ask him to give similar data on any of his colleagues when they were Ministers, but I think he would find it very difficult to do that. Perhaps the Deputy is jealous and I will bear with him.
As I said, the Minister faced up to the 1992 market, dealt with the entrepreneurs, business people, investors and speculators and undertook a nationwide tour to promote 1992. He arranged for presentations by the IDA, Córas Tráchtála, EOLAS, The Irish Goods Council, etc. which were a terrific success. He also promoted the national linkage programme. His record has been second to none since he took over as Minister for Finance.
Is the Minister going to be the chief executive of the agency?
This Bill will be another one of the Minister's achievements.
Is the Minister going to apply for the post of chief executive of this agency? Is the Deputy promoting him for the job?
I am somewhat tempted to reply to the Opposition because I have sat in this Chamber since 1.30 p.m. waiting to speak——
The Deputy did not get an opportunity to speak on the Broadcasting Bill.
——I did not leave the House — and during that time I listened to nothing but a charade——
Deputy Callely should not sully what has been a refreshingly relevant contribution by lowering his standards. Will he remain on the high ground?
I thank you very much for your kind comments, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I think it is only human to want to reply to the nonsense from the other side of the House but I think I will take your advice and conclude my remarks.
I call Deputy Seán Barrett.
On a point of order, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I was advised by your predecessor that when the Government speaker had finished on this occasion it would be the turn of my party.
Although the Chair does not have to explain, I will explain the position to Deputy Rabbitte in so far as an explanation makes people a little happier than they were. Because of the numerical strength of the Fine Gael Party as against other parties it has been established on Second Stage that, as the debate flows from one side of the House to the other, which is a normal requirement and tradition, the stronger party, Fine Gael, get two speakers as against other parties. Deputy Brian O'Shea spoke for the Labour Party and was followed on this side by Deputy Bernard Durkan, so Fine Gael has had just one speaker.
I beg to differ, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Deputy Joe Doyle spoke since my leader spoke this morning.There have been two Fine Gael speakers.
The Deputy did not listen to what I said. I am not concerned about who spoke since your leader spoke. I am concerned about the sequence which has followed. The sequence for the Opposition has been a member of the Labour Party, a Government spokesperson, a member of the Fine Gael Party and a Government spokesperson. I am now calling on a second member of the Fine Gael Party.
I stand corrected, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
I am sorry for the Deputy but that is the tradition.
I do not believe in opposing something just for the sake of opposing it, but I do not have any difficulty in opposing the Bill before us which proposes the setting up of a National Treasury Management Agency.
Before I refer to the Bill I should like to avail of the opportunity of complimenting those whose responsibility it has been for many years to manage the debt control and go to the market place to get funds to keep us afloat. I am delighted to see that some of those people are present in the House today as officials from the Department of Finance. The country owes a great debt to those people who have served it so well.
This is the reason I am opposed to the setting up of an independent agency. It is vitally important, as we move into the 21st century, that we move our Civil Service into the 21st century. We badly need a modern Civil Service to serve the State and face the challenges of the 21st century.We also need an independent Civil Service who will display their independence, as they have done at all times in the past. I am afraid this Bill will take away that independence which has been traditional among those who have served the State on an ongoing basis irrespective of who was in Government. That has been the strength of our Civil Service over the years.
It is regrettable that the Minister has proposed in this Bill that he will appoint the chief executive of the agency, something which is foreign to the past practice in the Civil Service, where we went out of our way to make certain that an independent Civil Service Appointments Commission would be in place, and rightly so. A previous Government, anxious to reform the Civil Service, established a top level committee to deal with appointments to senior posts in the Civil Service. Under that system all civil servants can compete for the top posts. I criticise the Government for not continuing with the reforms necessary in the Civil Service.
Like other Members I received this morning a copy of the publication, The Civil Service Observed, by Mr. C.H. Murray, a former and well known civil servant, who went on to be the first chairman of the Institute of Public Administration.Mr. Murray highlighted what he considered to be wrong with the Civil Service and discussed the reforms considered in the White Paper Serving the Country Better. He found it regrettable that the reforms had not continued. There is evidence of a lack of reform throughout the Civil Service. The chief executives of commercial State companies, who are expected to operate in the commercial marketplace, are not paid the going rate for the job they are expected to do. I do not see any difficulty about reviewing the structures of the Civil Service and rewarding those who hold high positions. They should be remunerated in the same way as those who do similar work in the private sector.
The difficulty in regard to commercial State bodies has been that there was too much ministerial and Government interference.Problems also arose because many of the appointees to State boards were not capable of doing their job. Our management structure is such that we are unable to attract the right type of people to manage our major State companies. The latter stems from the fact that posts in the private sector offer greater remuneration and benefits. The same is true of the Civil Service. If we are not careful our top ranking civil servants will be attracted to the private sector. That will weaken our democratic process and the structures all politicians depend on for support and advice. It is time we faced up to that. Many civil servants do not think in terms of their remuneration but simply seek an opportunity to develop their own ideas and get job satisfaction. We must develop a system that will give those with talent an opportunity to develop their ideas. I hope that we do not lose those talented executives who are frustrated with the system in the Civil Service.
It is public knowledge that offers are made to civil servants who are skilled in managing debt servicing and have ability to negotiate huge loans. These people are vital to the Civil Service and we should make use of their talents. The expertise they have gained in debt control and borrowing should be applied to all Departments.It will be disastrous if they are lost to the Civil Service. There is a danger that they will move on when the agency is established. I can see many people being disappointed when the agency is set up. It will create a great deal of jealousy because top ranking civil servants will ask if their jobs are not as important as those holding equivalent rank in the Department of Finance. They will want to know why the Government do not establish an independent agency in their Department so that they can be remunerated in line with the going rate. Will we have a proliferation of these agencies simply to retain top ranking civil servants? The setting up of the agency will not in the long term be in the best interests of the country.
I am not suggesting that those with expertise should not be properly remunerated. They should be, but we continue to operate an outdated system. Those who have had the honour of serving in Government will accept that our decision-making process is antiquated. It is ridiculous that Ministers should be involved in the day-to-day administration of Departments. Many civil servants are capable of making management decisions on matters that do not have anything to do with public representatives. Civil servants should be allowed develop a proper management structure and avoid having to wait for a Minister to make a decision. It is absurd that a Minister should be presented with a bundle of files and asked to sign them so that a statutory requirement is fulfilled. If a person ran a business with those structures he or she would not last more than one month before they would be declared bankrupt.
Those who prove successful in politics — I am referring to those who are appointed to ministerial rank — may not have the management skills required for the day-to-day running of a Department. Elected representatives should give leadership and develop policies. We look to the civil servants to implement our decisions.
I suggest to the Government that instead of establishing the agency they should continue the work started by a previous Government of reforming the Civil Service.I am not suggesting that everything done by that Administration worked very well, but at least they started down the road of reforming the Civil Service. A lot remains to be done. The decision to appoint a Minister for the Public Service independent of the Department of Finance was a good move. Has a Minister for Finance, who is responsible for the financial affairs of the country, the time or the ability to develop new structures in the Civil Service? I do not think he has. There are only 24 hours in a day and no person can spend all that time dealing with reform of the Civil Service.
The establishment of the agency represents a disastrous step and I fear what it will mean to the Civil Service structure. It will lead to tremendous problems. Ministers will have great problems trying to retain their top staff or trying to recruit experts to carry out the tasks that are important for the day-to-day running of the country.
