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.