I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".
Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill, 1995: Second Stage.
Is Deputy Doyle not being somewhat presumptuous in sitting where she is?
My only presumption is that I am next to speak and that is more than a presumption, it is a fact.
This Bill is required to give effect to the decision by the Government to increase the number of Ministers of State from 15 to 17. At present, section 1 of the Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 1977, as amended by section 2 of the Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Act, 1980, restricts the maximum number of Ministers of State to 15.
The additional positions of Ministers of State envisaged by this Bill will be assigned to Deputies Avril Doyle and Donal Carey. I should like to say something about the portfolios which it is intended to assign to these two Deputies.
Deputy Carey will be Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach and the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht. He will be given special responsibility for co-ordinating the Government's commitment to western development and rural renewal.
The west has been beset by a self-perpetuating economic malaise. With the declining population, services have been reduced and economic activity has declined, leading in turn to further depopulation. This population haemorrhage must be stopped. Our hope and expectation is that the population of the west will have stabilised by the end of the decade.
Deputy Carey's remit will include responsibility for the activities of the Western Development Partnership Board and for co-ordinating support for the implementation of the action plan which the board is preparing. The board will produce its action plan by the autumn. The remit of the board will be extended to include County Clare.
Deputy Carey will also be given responsibility for overseeing the implementation of a pilot programme for the development of a more integrated approach to the delivery of public services in remote rural areas. We see this pilot programme — which will be first developed in the west — as an important step in the development of an innovative response to the need to reconcile efficiency and equity in ensuring access to services in rural areas generally.
In addition, he will have a special brief in relation to the improvement in living conditions of residents on our islands. In this connection, Deputy Carey will chair an inter-departmental committee to examine the various problems facing island communities and the ways in which these difficulties could be overcome.
In view of the fundamental significance of the Gaeltacht for the future development of the west, Deputy Carey will also have specific responsibility for the Gaeltacht at the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht.
There have been many, genuine, expressions of concern over the years from different quarters about the development needs of rural Ireland and of the west in particular. We are conscious of the initiatives of non-governmental groups — such as the Crusade for Survival launched by the Western Bishops — in trying to seek solutions to the particular problems of the less economically advantaged regions. The appointment of Deputy Carey to this particular brief represents, in a very tangible way, the Government's firm commitment to supporting and enhancing these efforts by positive political action. It is only through co-operation between dynamic and forward looking local communities who have a positive vision of their future and a Government firmly committed to western devleopment that real progress can be made.
Deputy Avril Doyle will be appointed Minister of State at three Departments: The Taoiseach's, Transport, Energy and Communications and my own Department — Finance. Her remit will encompass special responsibility for a number of initiatives under the general public service reform umbrella. This is an area in which I have a particular personal interest and, as Minister for Finance, a special responsibility.
Among the specific tasks to be assigned to Minister of State, Deputy Doyle, is the development of the strategic management initiative — or SMI as it has become known — in the public service.
This important initiative, which is currently under way across all Departments and offices, was set in train by the previous Taoiseach and is being continued by this Government. The first phase of the initiative, which was completed in the latter part of 1994, concentrated on developing the mission and strategic high-level objectives of each Department and the identification of the optimum business strategy over the next several years. The initiative also embraces wider public service issues which transcend the immediate concerns of any one Department.
The primary objective of the SMI is to put in place, in each Department and public service agency, a management process focused on ensuring continuous improvements in the performance of the civil and wider public service in relation to the following items: the contribution that they can make to national development; the provision of services to the public; and the efficient and effective use of resources.
The establishment, or consolidation, of this type of management process requires that each Department and agency should (1) establish clear, focused objectives aimed at achieving Government policy; (2) devise appropriate strategies for the pursuit of these objectives; (3) set ambitious, reliable output targets at all levels within the organisation; (4) monitor progress with a view to ensuring that targets are being achieved; and (5) continuously roll over plans and strategies to ensure ongoing improvements in efficiency and effectiveness.
Another aim of the SMI initiative is to ensure greater co-operation and interaction between Departments in areas of mutual interest and between Departments and their agencies. There will also be a greater focus on improving the delivery of services with a view to making them more customer orientated.
Following the completion of the first phase of the SMI, Departments are now commencing the process of concentrating their aims and strategies into specific objectives to inform the day-to-day work of their staff. This will require each Department to establish relevant measures of performance so that progress at all levels can be monitored and evaluated.
The size of the public service, the volume of resources which it manages, and the prominent contributions which it makes to the national economy require that it functions with optimum efficiency and that its many activities are designed for maximum effectiveness. The pace of change — social, economic and even political — and the growing impact of international factors demand that our public service management structures and systems be flexible and responsive and capable of delivering value for money.
The SMI will embrace a critical assessment of existing practices along with the many assumptions and rigidities which have, inevitably, grown up in areas of the public service over the years. It will facilitate the carrying through of the necessary reforms to ensure that the public service is able to meet the challenges of the coming decades effectively and with confidence.
Another important area of reform in which I expect Deputy Doyle will play a major role is in ensuring that the interests of the consumer are paramount in all dealings with the public services, including State companies. The Government's programme of work includes an undertaking to publish an administrative procedures Bill. The objective of this Bill will be to ensure that the citizen, in all his or her dealings with the institutions of Government, receives the level of service which he or she has every right to expect. The Bill will vest in the Office of the Ombudsman monitoring and regulatory functions and will incorporate requirements on such issues as response time for handling cases, the level of guidance to be given to the public, and the form in which decisions are communicated which will set out the basis for the decision, the right of appeal, the right of access to relevant information on the case and the right of the individual to confer with the officials who have taken the decision.
I also intend that Deputy Doyle will be closely involved in the following other key public service reform items. First, the review of the provisions of the Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924, which underpins our Civil Service system. This will involve consideration of, among other things, the extent and limitations of ministerial and Civil Service accountability and responsibility. Second, the strengthening of our Oireachtas committee system through the introduction of legislation which will empower committees to call for persons and papers and to confer privilege on witnesses. A major effect of this change will be to extend and deepen public accountability. Third, a review of the remit of the Ombudsman with a view to a major extension of that office's powers. That office has been in place for more than ten years and has served the country well. However, there have been significant developments in our system of public administration since then and in public expectations of that system and the legislative basis for the Ombudsman's activities to be extended to reflect such change. Fourth, the devolution of responsibility and accountability, communication and managerial cohesion within the public service and, fifth, the development, generally, of the principles of openness and transparency.
I look forward to working closely with Deputy Doyle on these and other issues. I am only too painfully aware that the history of reform of the Irish public service has been somewhat problematic. Our progress in this sphere has been very poor compared with that of many other Western democracies.
The problem has been nothing less than a failure to give our citizens the top quality and efficient services which they deserve because in a very real sense they are the ultimate owners of these services and are paying for them through taxation.
Our inability to maintain a sustained approach to public service reform has not been an intellectual one. We can compare with the best in so far as the critical analysis of our problems and the development of original ideas for their resolution is concerned. One has only to recall the report of the Public Services Organisation Review Group — or the Devlin report as it is more commonly called; the White Paper on Serving the Country Better, and the excellent contributions made by public servants, academics and political figures over the years in the pages of such journals as Administration, published by the IPA and Seirbhis Phoibli, published by my Department, to realise that our difficulties lie outside the realms of rigorous thought and imaginative response. Indeed, I am aware that some of the public service reform concepts which were developed here, but never implemented, have been adopted and applied in other jurisdictions.
In trying to get behind this failure, I have come to the conclusion that two fundamental, yet related, flaws dogged previous reform initiatives: first, there was a lack of real political support — which resulted from both the slow rate of progress and the perceived need to move on to what were regarded as more pressing items. Second, there was a somewhat hesitant enthusiasm for change at administrative level, brought about largely by the fact that the public service management did not own the decisions involved in the reform process.
I am, however, convinced that prevailing administrative and political circumstance is more conducive than ever to meaningful change. The key reform issue, and the one on which our public service reform measures in all other areas are predicated — the strategic management initiative — is being developed within Departments and the emphasis is clearly placed on departmental ownership of, and, more importantly, responsibility for, the initiative. The bottom-up approach is a much more certain road to success.
The Civil Service which will be required to carry through change is progressive-minded and a far cry from the obstructive "Yes Minister" ethos which some still associate with our modern public administration. Our top Civil Service is now entirely peopled with officials who attained office through the rigorous competitive system of the Top Level Appointments Committee. These officials from all Departments and offices regularly get together in networks to discuss, analyse and plan resolutions of the varying strategic issues which confront our public service.
The new role envisaged for Ministers of State with responsibility in several Departments should complement this process. In recent years it has been recognised that there is a need to carry out specific tasks which cut across traditional departmental lines. There are many tasks which have remained difficult to accomplish successfully because they fall between Departments or because a truly co-ordinated approach has not been achieved due to the differences in outlook or priority of the many Departments involved. Examples include the care of children which involves the Departments of Education, Justice and Health — Deputy Currie has now been assigned responsibility for this specific area — and the identification and elimination of anomalies that have grown up between the social welfare system and the tax system — Deputy Durkan has been assigned to accomplish this task.
As I pointed out the two additional Ministers of State proposed will in each case have functions involving the co-ordination of the work of a number of Departments to achieve the completion of specific projects. I believe that this cross-departmental approach will work and could well prove to be a useful mechanism for future Governments to adopt. Clearly it will be a matter for each new Government to decide whether and to what extent the additional posts now being created will be used.
In conclusion, I believe that, rather than lamenting the political failures of the past — which is a futile exercise at any time — we should resolve not to repeat the same mistakes. I can only speak with direct authority on the commitment to change at Government level; that commitment is real and is expressed in unambiguous terms in our Programme for Government. We are quite prepared to be judged on the integrity of our efforts to effect change.
The Government has an ambitious programme of work. We are determined to see it through. We must maximise our resources to ensure success and increasing the number of Ministers of State will play an important part in this process.
I do not begrudge Deputies Doyle and Carey their appointments as I know they will make fine Ministers of State. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Quinn, my former colleague, and still my very good friend, I hope, made a good case for reform in the public service but no case that we need two extra Ministers of State to carry it out.
This is the kind of proposal and debate which confirms cynicism in the mind of the general public about all politicians. It is comforting to know that the high moral ground has been abandoned long enough to fix up some jobs for the boys and girls. At the outset of this debate, I give this commitment on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party, we will repeal this legislation when we return to office after the next general election.
I wish to dispel any notion that might be abroad that this Bill was part of some trade-off between my party and the Government in order to allow Deputy Joe Jacob to retain the office of Leas-Cheann Comhairle. It was never part of any negotiations leading to the retention of Deputy Jacob in that position.
We are all familiar with Parkinson's Law, that "work expands to fill the time available for its completion". Now we have a new law — the Rainbow Law, "work expands to fill the number of Ministers of State available for its completion."
When our Constitution was drafted it was laid down that Government was to be carried on by a Government of no fewer than seven members and not more than 15. That Ministers might require assistance, particularly in the running of the larger Departments of State, was recognised even then by the creation of the post of Parliamentary Secretary. Usually there were seven such Parliamentary Secretaries.
The only reason we should appoint Ministers of State is to do certain work to which, because of their busy schedules, Ministers cannot devote sufficient time. Has the amount of work increased so dramatically in the past two months that we need two extra Ministers of State? Shortly after returning to office in 1977, Fianna Fáil introduced legislation whereby Parliamentary Secretaries were replaced by Ministers of State, the number of which was fixed at ten.
The change of title was justified among other reasons, by reference to our membership of the EEC and the difficulty involved in communicating to those less fortunate Europeans unfamiliar with British Parliamentary titles that Parliamentary Secretaries were not in fact rather aged clerical assistants. Obviously, the change of title need not have meant much to the taxpayer, but the increase in the number of available jobs to ten did have a significant cost implication.
The Government of 1977 has never been noted, certainly not by myself, as a Government of frugality or financial self restraint. Three years later, the number of Ministers of State was increased to 15 and since then, regardless of whether Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour or the Progressive Democrats were in Government, we have been singularly "blessed" by having as many Ministers of State as members of the Government.
Having 15 Ministers of State has always had as much to do with political patronage as with any real necessity for so many of these appointments. Certainly, there were always good reasons for the appointment of Ministers of State to large Departments. Equally, in 1987 the appointment of Ministers of State was used to add focus to specific areas of developmental interest; food and horticulture are good examples. Nevertheless, it has to be said that the main reason for having 15 Ministers of State has always been political expediency. In 1980, it suited the new leadership of Fianna Fáil to have more appointments available in the context of Fianna Fáil's unprecedented number of backbenchers at that time.
Between 1982 and 1987, it suited Fine Gael and Labour to retain 15 Ministers of State so as to tie as many backbenchers as possible into an administration which was not universally popular in those parties and especially the Labour Party. The same rationale applied to the recent administrations involving Fianna Fáil, the Progressive Democrats and the Labour Party. Many of the Ministers of State are virtually titular appointments involving little or any real power or administrative benefit. There is a good case to be made for reducing the number of such appointments. There is no case to be made for increasing that number. Any person who was a member of a Government in the recent past will agree with that. Nobody is really suggesting that there are any administrative reasons for the proposal contained in this Bill to create two further Ministers of State.
The necessity for these appointments derives solely and blatantly from the inability of Fine Gael, Labour and Democratic Left to agree on how to share out the existing 15 Cabinet and 15 Ministers of State posts. It is no coincidence that the last, and some would say, the only, issue to be resolved during the negotiations which preceded the setting up of this Government was the jobs issue. After all, the Labour Party was half way through an agreed Programme for Government negotiated with Fianna Fáil and had virtually completed renegotiating the second half of that programme. Fine Gael and Democratic Left had consistently and often bitterly opposed the thrust and content of the Fianna Fáil-Labour programme.
Within days, however, it was clear that either Labour was abandoning the policies it had just signed up to implement with Fianna Fáil, or that Fine Gael and Democratic Left were happily signing up to implement Fianna Fáil-Labour policies. The only item which caused any real difficulty was the unfortunate implications of the fact that 32 does not go into 30.
The financial ills of this country in the 1970s and 1980s entirely reflected the inability of Governments to cut their cloth to suit their measure. Wishing to implement, for example, 32 projects but only having the funds in hand for 30, the Government's answer was not to cut back on the number of projects undertaken but rather to spend beyond our national means.
It bodes ill for this administration, and for the country, that the Government's solution to the problem of 32 ambitions being irreconcilable with only 30 appointments is to increase the number of appointments. It is worth reflecting on why the number of Ministers of State is to be increased to 17 as opposed to 16 or 18? Initially, as Labour refused to accept fewer Cabinet positions than they held with Fianna Fáil, six, as Fine Gael refused to accept fewer than a majority of the Cabinet posts, eight, and as Democratic Left insisted on the O'Malley minimum number of posts for Government participation, two, the problem was that 16 jobs cannot be filled from 15 vacancies.
Quite obviously if the Constitution did not limit the number of appointments to Government then the solution would have been simply to increase the size of the Cabinet. Fortunately, for the taxpayer but unfortunately for Deputy Rabbitte, his ambitions have not been deemed sufficiently serious to justify a constitutional referendum. Instead of two Cabinet posts, the Democratic Left was asked to take one place at the Cabinet table for two Ministers of State as consolation prizes. This leaves Deputy Rabbitte in an odd position; able to attend Cabinet meetings but not to participate in any useful way. He will be seen and not heard; a political role equivalent to that of a eunuch in a harem.
The cost of this exercise in political futility, the cost of Deputy Rabbitte's ministerial salary, ministerial car, ministerial advisers and ministerial staff will be borne by the unfortunate taxpayer.
Why only one new post? Not only did the negotiations leading to the formation of this Government involve the giving out of a job which did not exist, they also involved the giving away of a job which was not vacant, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's position. Unwilling to bear the opprobrium of removing Deputy Jacob, the solution found to assuage Deputy Carey's ambition was to create yet a further post of Minister of State.
Has the west of Ireland suddenly been discovered? Was it not there last December? I can find no mention in the Government programme of setting up a new ministry for the west. One can only say that when the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste said that jobs would be a top priority for this Government, they certainly meant it. We should be grateful that we only got three quarters of the rainbow. If the Progressive Democrats were in Government also, presumably there would have had to be so many more Ministers of State that even Deputy Shatter might have been included. The reason the Progressive Democrats were not included is now fairly clear.
At the time it was suggested that policy differences might have arisen. Given that the Blueshirt and Stalinist traditions of Irish politics only really had to haggle over the division of the spoils and sorted out their differences with the only job creation the Government has achieved to date, it is pretty clear that it was the size of the trough and not the pedigree of the diners which decided how many were asked to the table.
Not alone is a new Government insulting the intelligence of the electorate by creating two new expensive Minister of State posts, but we are being told that the House is to get at least four additional committees. Whereas there may be reasons for having special additional committees, the only reason the Government is giving at this stage is the creation of new posts for its backbenchers.
Each of the committees will carry remuneration for the chairperson and the convenor. Virtually the only argument put forward to support these appointments is that new structures are necessary in a three party Coalition, but where does this argument end? Why should we not have two Tánaistes? I wonder how the electorate would vote if a constitutional amendment to that effect was proposed? If only my Fianna Fáil colleagues and I could have stumbled on this type of brainwave in the second half of 1994, it would have been very simple to deal with the post of President of the High Court. Mathematicians among you will have worked out that the answer was to have two Presidents of the High Court.
Although written more than 100 years ago, William Gilbert's observations on the body politic of late Victorian England are all too often still acutely relevant today. In "the Gondoliers" the throne of the imaginary kingdom of Batavia is temporarily occupied by two Venetian Republicans who decide to remould the monarchy on republican lines. This they seek to achieve by pronouncing that all Departments are to rank equally and that everybody is to be at the head of his Department. This policy they put into effect with chaotic results while they, as republican monarchs, sing of their new found role in terms that seem singularly appropriate to today's debate. Rather than sing it, I will quote it:
O philosophers may sing of the worries of a king, but the pleasures they are many and the privileges great, and the greatest single pleasure that we treasure beyond measure is to run on little errands for the Minister of State.
Eventually, however, the flaws in this experiment are pointed out in another verse which concludes:
In short whoever you may be, to this conclusion you'll agree When everyone is somebodee then no-one's anybody.
The trouble with this Bill is that, at a time when we should debate a reduction in the number of Ministers of State and restore some public confidence in the Government and public administration we make a farce of the whole concept and role of Ministers of State.
At a time when the workers in Packard Electric are asked to accept redundancies to keep the overall operation viable — being asked by no-one other than Deputy Rabbitte — it is ironic that unnecessary additional jobs are being created by this House — one of them for Deputy Rabbitte — simply as very expensive political consolation prizes.
The public should be aware that the cost of these appointments and the creation of these extra quangos, to be known as special committees, does not just include the extra salaries of the nominees. The total cost will include the cost of staffing their private offices, employing additional drivers, and extra travel and subsistence.
I offer a word of advice to the Government backbenchers. Why stop at two new Ministers of State? Remember that this Government has a slim majority. Pick a topical subject and start a crusade on it. Hint that you might just vote against the Government and persuade one or two others to do likewise. You never know — you might just get lucky too. I ask the House to reject this Bill.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, it is a pleasure to see you still in the Chair. I know you are not allowed to comment on that, but the circumstances in which you remain in the Chair have much more to do with the fact that we are having this debate today than the reasons given by Deputy Quinn in justification for what is an outrageous new low point in political cynicism.
Necessity has been described as the mother of invention. In recent weeks we saw that political necessity can be a very fertile mother. Rarely has the proposition that necessity is the mother of invention been more clearly demonstrated than in the circumstances that surrounded the genesis of this Bill. As Deputy McCreevy said, Parkinson's Law, which we all heard about from Professor C. Northcote Parkinson, laid down the principle that work expands to fill the time available for its completion. This Bill is effectively amending legislation to Parkinson's Law in that the work of Government will expand to fill the political need to appoint more officer holders.
I agree with Deputy McCreevy that the humble sounding position "Parliamentary Secretary" was translated into "Minister of State" for reasons connected with the European Community almost two decades ago. Nobody begrudges the holders of those offices the extra dignity and status conferred on them by being described as Ministers, even if they are not full members of the Government under the Constitution. Under this Bill it is proposed to increase the total number of ministerial office holders on the Government benches to 32. As Deputy McCreevy pointed out, that is only a harbinger of what is to come. In the near future we will have a plethora of new committees with new chairmen and convenors. The reality is that at the end of this whole procedure there will be almost 50 members on the Government benches drawing salaries arising from parliamentary office in addition to their Deputies' salaries. It is difficult to imagine a more loyalty-cementing element in a multi-faceted Government. It will clearly bind together people who have very strong political reasons to flee from each other.
There is something suspect about a Government the majority of whose parliamentary supporters occupy positions of reward within the Parliament. It comes almost to the points of Gay Byrne language where there is now one office for every couple in the audience. We are nearly at the point where there is a job for everybody in the audience as far as the Government is concerned.
As a person who has a profession as well as a seat in the Dáil, I do not begrudge any Member of this House carrying out important functions adequate remuneration for them, but I query whether the workload of Government has suddenly expanded so as to require two further office holders or whether on the contrary we are witnessing a feeding frenzy by people who face starvation rations while on the Opposition benches. As Deputy McCreevy pointed out, there must always be an element of musical chairs in politics. Sometimes there are not enough positions to satisfy all disappointed supporters. How would the game of musical chairs work — it would lose its entire meaning — if the number of chairs is always increased to accommodate dissatisfied players? Sixteen into 15 will not go; 32 into 30 will not go — when I was at school that phenomenon was described as a vulgar fraction. This legislation issued to camouflage the vulgar fraction of Irish political reality that there are simply too many boys and girls to fill too few jobs.
I congratulate Deputy Donal Carey on his elevation to the rank of Minister of State with special responsibility for the west. Few Deputies have taken such a consistent interest in the affairs of this House, sitting through long debates and contributing generously of his time to the proceedings of this House and its committees. Deputy Carey certainly deserves promotion, but he should have got it in December, not belatedly now. He deserved promotion at a time when he was promised it. With the greatest of respect, what has happened since has been no service to him. There was to be no ministry for the west when the Government was formed in December. There was however a fixed determination on the part of the Government to appoint Deputy Carey as Leas-Cheann Comhairle. On 15 and 20 December when announcements were made concerning ministerial appointments no mention was made of western affairs. Such brief was only proposed for the first time by the Government when the appointment of Deputy Carey as Leas-Cheann Comhairle fell through. There was no mention of the west in the Programme for Government. If one searches that programme from beginning to end one will not find the words "western development" or any similar phrase anywhere in it. In the confluence of verbiage described as "A Government for Renewal" there is not one single word about western development.
At that time there was talk about the need for an extra ministry and a single storey lean-to extension was proposed to the overcrowded house of the Government to accommodate Deputy Avril Doyle; that was the only extension in respect of which planning permission was then sought. We now have a two storey extension to accommodate Deputy Carey as well. How has this concern for the west suddenly become a priority for the Government? As I said earlier, the reality is that it is a simple case of necessity being the mother of invention; the necessity of finding an extra role for somebody to play in Government being the mother of invention, which on this occasion is a new found interest in the west.
Some people must have been laughing up their sleeves when, in their search for a fig leaf to cover the embarrassment of their retreat on the unsuccessful assault on the position of Leas-Cheann Comhairle, it was realised that the consolation prize which would be offered to Deputy Carey would carry with it the windfall of an unexpected episcopal endorsement. To be fair, the Bishops have shown a consistent sense of purpose in relation to the west, unlike the Government, in its short lifetime, which only remembered the west as a very belated afterthought. The spin doctors have thought that no one would hit a politician with a Bishop in his arms. That is a phenomenon we are seeing here today.
Deputy Carey has been correctly described as Minister for the West. Deputy Doyle has been properly described as the Minister for everywhere and everything else. One has in all decency to extend congratulations to her for her endless patience in becoming the latest occupant of the lean-to-ministry attached to the house of Government. What function will Deputy Doyle fulfil in the Government? She will be Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Minister of State at the Department of Finance and Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications. Is this all the humble Deputy is seeking for herself? No. We also learn that she is to be given responsibility for the strategic management initiative in the entire public service. However, this is not all. We are told that she will be specially charged with the entirely new function of ensuring that the interests of the consumer are paramount in all dealings with the public services.
That is not the end of it either, her interests go further than that. She will also reform the Ombudsman's office and, when finished with that, she has responsibility for the relations of customers with all state companies. Lastly, when she has accomplished all those tasks, this all-powerful Minister of State is expected to take responsibility for consumer guarantee programmes in the wider public service. That is a handful. I am very glad that someone will take up all those tasks. What would have happened if this Bill had not been drafted? What would the other 15 Minister of State have managed to do with their time if Deputy Doyle had not come to their assistance and made sense of all the nonsense to which Deputy Quinn referred earlier?
One of the things which struck me about Deputy Quinn's analysis of what Deputy Doyle will be doing was his frank admission that there had been plenty of reports and thinking about the inadequacies of our public service. However, the curious thing is that when it came to implementing those reports there was, as Deputy Quinn said, a remarkable lack of political will. He attributes this to a lack of political support, which I suppose is the responsibility of politicians, and a lack of public service support, which is the responsibility of the public service.
He tends to believe — in this he is naive — that because this new formula for reform of the public service will come from the ground upwards and will be endorsed by the entire public service it will succeed where others have failed. Do we in this House not remember that at one time we had a Minister for the Public Service, a man charged with responsibility for all these things and with a full Department to accomplish them? He did not bestride three Departments, like the colossus which is now to be Deputy Doyle. How is it that a man given an entire Department for himself to accomplish all these things, for example, the Devlin report, etc. — the former Deputy John Boland was a great occupier of that office — failed completely to deliver on the agenda which Deputy Quinn now says is being implemented in other countries using our theoretical models as patterns? The reality is that there has been paralysis through analysis in relation to reform of the public service and a Minister of State who has her feet in at least three Departments from time to time will not make greater progress in this task than a specially commissioned Minister for the Public Service did in the past.
Like Deputy Doyle, the Minister of State, Deputy Gay Mitchell, has been given huge and wide-ranging responsibilities. When he is not performing as Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs he is in charge of local development. What falls outside those two remits? When he is finished worrying about European affairs on behalf of the country he spends the other 12 hours of his day worrying about local development. He also has to take on board responsibility for the International Financial Services Centre. Why somebody who is responsible for European affairs and local development should be responsible for the International Financial Services Centre escapes me. When he is finished all those tasks he is charged by the Government with responsibility for preparing our position for the intergovernmental conference in 1996. To do all these things he is attached to two Departments, the Department of the Taoiseach and the Department of Foreign Affairs.
One could take two views on these issues. First, one could say that these broad and formidable ranges of special responsibilities show that we are dealing with a new breed of politician, super men and super women. Is it a bird, is it a plane? No, it is Deputy Mitchell or Deputy Doyle. Are we to believe that ordinary poor mortals who grind their way to the top in politics can only handle a Department but that this new generation of purpose-bred politicians can achieve tasks which span entire Departments and the continent of Europe and at the same time concentrate on local developments?
The alternative view is that junior Ministers are, as Deputy McCreevy said, people who substitute for Ministers when they are not available and who can give on the record briefings to the press in their areas of competence. This is a huge advantage because there has been much controversy about off the record briefings which apparently are reserved for the higher ranking category of programme managers in the new system of Government.
I agree with Deputy Harney it is unfortunate that in the rash of ministerial appointments at junior level they have somehow scrapped the only junior ministry which made any impression on the public, the Minister with responsibility for environmental protection. I sympathise with Deputy Harney's sense of anger and disappointment that that office which achieved real things and which the average person understood in terms of its breadth, purpose and potential has been swept away and been replaced by a number of highly artificial glomerations of special responsibilities. none of which means anything to anybody.
I ask any member of this Government to go down O'Connell Street, around St. Stephen's Green. Moore Street or Henry Street and ask the people they meet the responsibilities of any of the junior Ministers. The only job identified will be that of Deputy Carey because nobody will ever remember the list of gobbledygook appointments and responsibilities that have been held out as the special responsibility of other Ministers, including Deputy Doyle.
I note the Members of the Labour Party have left the House because this is an embarrassing moment and it is all Fine Gael's fault. I note also the Members of Democratic Left are not here either and that is the best thing to do, keep one's head down and do not get into trouble. It is noteworthy that Democratic Left has received greater largesse in terms of Minister of State appointments than it had anticipated. I have to agree with Deputy McCreevy, however, that that probably arises from its disappointment at not getting another full Cabinet position. Of course, this difficulty of the Democratic Left Party arose from the intransigence of its senior partners, neither of whom was willing to yield right of way to Deputy Rabbitte and accord him a proper place at the Cabinet table. So he has to be content with what I would describe as a ministerial high chair drawn up at the edge of the Cabinet table, alongside the Whip, Deputy Barrett, and now, in addition to a Whip at the Cabinet table, we have a Minister of State brandishing a rattle, or perhaps a soother, for Democratic Left.
Programme managers and unelected advisers have recently come in for a bit of stick and I want to comment in the context of the Bill, on those categories of people. There is nothing wrong in the appointment of Cabinet type assistance to assist in the formulation and implementation of ministerial policy. There is a great need for Ministers to have trusted political advisers available on a full time basis to counterbalance purely departmental advice. Accordingly, I have not joined in the chorus of complaint about the appointment of programme managers but it is important that those who are, for the time being, programme managers should not discredit the system under which they were appointed. Especially in a Coalition, there can be need for ministerial cohesion. As one who was constantly upbraided, while chairman of my party but not a Member of this House, for being an unelected voice offstage, I can afford the wry reflection that my subsequent re-election to this House, did not seem to lend any new weight or authority to anything I ever had to say and my critics did not seem to accord me or my ideas any special new status by virtue of the fact that I had, in the meantime, been elected.
It is important to remember that politics is about the implementation of policy and the political parties are the vehicles by which those policies are endorsed by the electorate and brought forward for implementation in Government. Political parties are not the booster stage of a rocket which falls away, burns up in the atmosphere and puts the most prominent members of the party in question into orbit as Ministers. There is a great need for a mechanism to keep elected politicians in touch with their policy agenda, just as there is a need to keep elected politicians in touch with the grassroots of their political parties. If we want to keep elected Ministers in charge of Departments in touch with their political agenda, we must have something akin to a Cabinet. There must be a counterbalance to the force and the dynamic of departmental advice and the departmental agenda to which every Minister is necessarily subject. The recent controversy, therefore, about ministerial appointments, advisers and programme managers seems, in large measure, to have avoided what I consider is a worthwhile feature of those offices, that it is essential that a political party does not regard obtaining office as an end in itself but is always loyal and faithful to the policy mandate which put it into Government.
I sincerely wish Deputies Doyle and Carey well as the intended beneficiaries of this most ill-conceived and unnecessary addition to the power of Government to appoint Ministers of State. Both of them are equally deserving of the status of Minister of State, if any of their colleagues are. I genuinely mean that, but it is an appalling departure from common sense in politics that a Government should, because of parties elbowing each other off the ball at a particular point in the formation of the Government, force itself into the position where it has to effectively make the case in public that the business of Government requires 32 people to hold ministerial office. What has happened in the past four, five or six weeks that requires more Ministers and why has there not been any detailed evaluation of the responsibilities conferred in December on the other Ministers of State to see whether the functions which are being talked about today could have been carried out by them? Why were two Members of this House, Deputies Carey and Doyle, forced to wait for promotion while others do not have to face the glare of publicity or the questionable status of being "add ons" to the roll of Ministers, while their jobs were not sufficiently evaluated or justified in the past?
The average person has come to the clear conclusion that we do not need 32 Ministers and they will seriously resent it if, in addition to that, a clatter of Members of this House are offered jobs as committee chairmen and convenors. In those circumstances, there will be well justified cynicism and despair that, in the last analysis, the first legislation that should come before the House in the lifetime of a new Government should be cynical, self-serving legislation designed to make easy the relationship between the political parties rather than facilitate the Programme for Government.
Throughout this economy there is waste and any Government which intends to control public expenditure must show a desire to cut back on public expenditure where it can be done and to minimise its increases where increases are forced upon us. By the same token, if the members of a Government — particularly the Labour Party members — go through the charade of renouncing ministerial increases in salary, even though they voted for them on a division in this House some weeks, before, and then effectively set at nought that gesture by creating two new ministries with two new sets of civil servants, two sets of drivers and so on, and at the same time ask to be taken credibly when they say they are trying to control public spending, credulity is stretched too far.
This is a needless, self-inflicted wound in the foot of this Government on the first day of its first session in this House. It is a mistake which ought not to have been made. I say that entirely without prejudice to my genuine message of congratulation to the two prospective appointees. Each of them has a daunting task ahead. While I may have made fun of Deputy Doyle's agenda in that it is vague and open ended, both of them have a job to do but that job did not require the appointment of two additional people. In making these two appointments, the wrong message has been sent out to the people and this Government has chosen, on the first day of its first session in this House, to blow its foot away with an unnecessary gesture of contempt for the judgment of the people. If there had been a frank concession that this was simply in order to moderate the party political interests of the parties in Government, if there had been an admission that concern for the west of Ireland was an afterthought that only occurred to them because they could not have another more exalted job, if there had been an admission that Deputy Doyle's tasks could have been carried out by her as one of the 15 original appointees as Minister of State, I would be tempted to show some sympathy for the Government. However, I do not think I am required to show sympathy for what is, in essence, an exercise in cynicism, a betrayal of common sense.
On his first day as Taoiseach Deputy Bruton said in this House that in gaelic Ireland the Taoiseach was one who led by example rather than exhortation. Where is the example in these two unnecessary jobs? He said that the Taoiseach led by the character rather than coercion and exercised such authority as he had as a service to the people. He went on: "In the same way that I seek simplicity in the Office of Taoiseach, I seek simplicity in Government and national politics. Good Government is a public service and should be kept simple. This is a Republic." The following words are most important: "Public office is a privilege that must be paid for in hard work and long hours". While the two Deputies I mentioned earned their particular promotions, the public should not be asked to pay for the creation of two extra posts to accommodate them. The public should be repaid by this House rejecting what are unnecessary additions to the number of office-holders. This House should reject this measure and tell the Government that the proposed functions of Deputies Doyle and Carey should go to two of the 15 Ministers of State. These tasks should be carried out by the existing Ministers of State and the Government should not increase that number simply to accommodate every demand and in the interests of political expediency.
I have enjoyed the last two contributions. The core message was predictable and, if necessary, any of us could have written the scripts. They were humorous, well put together, articulate and entertaining. There were, however, a few inaccuracies. When Deputy McDowell went to such lengths to get my job description on the record, I am amazed that it was incomplete. He could add to the list my role as chairman of the Government's Famine Commemoration Committee and the 1798 Commemoration Committee. On the question of hard work and long hours, neither Deputy Carey nor I have ever been found wanting.
The Deputy will have no spare time to go to the races.
It will be difficult also for the Deputy in his arduous position. I am delighted to have been appointed by the Taoiseach, Deputy Bruton, to the position of Minister of State at the Departments of the Taoiseach, Finance and Transport, Energy and Communications, underlining the role of the introduction of the strategic management initiative in the public service. I can assure the last speakers that it is far from a titular appointment. My appointment is a strong public statement of the Taoiseach's and the Government's commitment to making the public service more efficient and better focused on the needs of its customers.
The Government's policy agreement, A Government of Renewal, places very considerable emphasis on the change in the public service to make it more responsible, transparent and accountable. I would draw the attention of the last two speakers to page 6 of that programme. The agenda for change is a demanding and complex one which affects all public service bodies across the range of State services. Because of this, a high degree of co-ordinated action in many different policy areas is required. Hence my post.
It is not always readily appreciated how large the public service is — it employs in excess of 180,000 people and the current pay bill exceeds £4 billion annually. Neither is it readily understood that our system of governance rests primarily on a single Act, the Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924. Ensuring that the public service and the resources, financial and human, at its disposal are well managed requires dedicated political direction. My task is to provide that direction, with special responsibility to introduce needed change.
In order to achieve change of the magnitude required, an agenda for action must be set. Of necessity, it must be far-reaching, focused, and designed to achieve results. It must be based on a coherent programme of action where the various elements will make a real difference to the quality of service to the public and will improve confidence in our public institutions. For this purpose, I have been assigned to three Departments — those of the Taoiseach, Finance, and Transport, Energy and Communications — which, in the light of my remit are the three key Departments.
My assignment to these three Departments will enable me to co-ordinate the planning and implementation of the change process across the widest possible spectrum and in the shortest period. My appointment to the Department of the Taoiseach demonstrates political commitment at the highest level to public service reform. As a Minister of State in the Department of the Taoiseach with particular responsibility for the strategic management initiative — to which I will return shortly — I will be able to play a key role in bringing forward change which, by its nature, affects not just one or two Departments but all Departments of State.
Complementing this will be my role in the Department of Finance, which will also be essential to the overall success of the process, given that Department's function in relation to public service management and development. Legislative changes arising from the strategic management initiative, such as amendment of the Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924, and the proposed administrative procedures Bill, will be implemented by the Department of Finance.
My appointment to the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications, with its wide variety of State bodies providing services to the public, is intended to give extra focus to the urgent necessity to improve the delivery of services in order to make them more customer oriented and customer friendly.
There are, therefore, a number of key areas on which I, as Minister of State, will focus in the immediate future. These are: (a) the deepening and strengthening of the Strategic Management Initiative within the public service; (b) developing, in conjunction with all the interested parties, a concerted programme of reform aimed at making public organisations more transparent and accountable, more efficient and effective, and more responsive to the needs of the public and (c) working closely with public sector organisations to produce standards of customer service which will set down the service to which the public is entitled and provide specific redress for customers who do not receive service to the specified standard.
In all these areas, I will be working closely with the Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance and my colleague, Deputy Lowry, Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, as well as the coordinating group of Secretaries set up to facilitate and support the SMI process and attendant reform programme.
Public service reform is not a new idea. We are all aware of attempts made in the past, with varying degrees of success, to improve the efficiency and operation of the public service. We are also aware of attempts in other countries to make progress in this area.
Why is reform important? It is easy to forget just how large the public service actually is or the very significant role which it plays in the national economy. The non-industrial Civil Service itself employs almost 29,000 people, while the wider public service — excluding the commercial State sector — employs around 182,000. To give some idea of the scale of services, there are more than 60,000 people providing health services alone. The public service pay bill runs to more than £4 billion a year — a colossal sum no matter how one looks at it. Simply as taxpayers, we should be concerned to ensure that this massive level of expenditure yields real value for money and that this vast manpower is deployed in the most effective manner possible.
A very small increase in the efficiency of the public service, when translated into cash and manpower terms, can mean a sizeable saving in taxation, the freeing up of scarce resources, financial and human, for redeployment to areas of universal concern — reducing unemployment, the creation of new business opportunities, the alleviation of social problems — the list is endless. However, the size and diversity of the public service mean that improvements in efficiency and effectiveness will not come about of themselves. Indeed, experience here and in other countries would indicate that great discipline by the Government is required to ensure that the public service does not expand beyond the capacity of the economy to sustain it.
This Government believes that only ongoing dedicated political commitment to public service reform will bring about the kind of changes we would all like to see. My appointment attests to this. We have a public service we can be proud of; generally it has served us well down the years but, of course, there are many areas in need of improvement. I have no doubt that most senior public servants would not disagree with me on this point.
The key to achieving the needed reform is the strategic management-initiative — or SMI — which was introduced last year and which has already led to the production by all Government Departments and offices of a strategic statement on what they ought to be doing in the future, rather than merely a static review of what they have been doing up to now. The purpose of the SMI is to relate the planning process to needed organisational change so that each Department and public body is enabled to focus clearly on its main business objectives and how it should best achieve these. Very importantly, it requires also the identification and pursuit of those objectives which span two or more Departments or bodies. The Government's commitment to tackling such problems is exemplified by the appointment of my colleague, Deputy Currie, to as Minister of State at the Departments of Health, Education and Justice, to ensure proper co-ordination of services for child care. The aim, ultimately, of the SMI is to secure, from within existing resources, continuous tangible improvements in the overall level of performance across the public service in all areas of its activities.
Some Departments have been more successful to date than others in formulating their objectives and strategies, but there can be no doubt that the type of critical self-scrutiny which SMI requires is leading to a very worthwhile and fundamental examination of the Civil Service as a whole. As SMI matures, as we begin to understand the concept more clearly and it becomes accepted and better understood by management across Departments, we can expect to see a more cohesive, co-ordinated and accountable group of organisations emerging. It will be my task to ensure that this happens, that the various plans, and strategies are implemented and progress monitored so that the required results are achieved.
Deputy McCreevy is right — because of busy schedules line Ministers cannot devote sufficient time to major tasks, such as the one I have been charged with and hence my specific job remit.
What needs to be reformed? This is a more difficult question than it sounds. The business of Government today is highly complex, spanning a vast array of activities and services, and touching the lives of every citizen in the State. No other organisation, or group of organisations, comes remotely close to the public service in this respect. It is reasonable, therefore, to expect that the factors which affect its smooth and effective operation are themselves diverse and complex. We need to be better informed about, and take a greater interest in, the many factors involved if we are to address the full range of issues and make the correct decisions. To this end, I would welcome a constructive debate on the many issues in question. Indeed, one of my first objectives is to initiate such a debate. To help this process, I would now like to mention some of the issues which need to be considered to bring about meaningful reform.
I have already said that our whole system of governance rests primarily on the Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924, which provides the statutory basis for all Government Departments and their Ministers. It is worth bearing in mind that it was drafted 70 years ago and reflects a view of the public service which has long been overtaken by events. The Civil Service at that time was far smaller and embraced a much more limited set of activities. The concept of the Minister as a "corporation sole", as it appears in that Act, has far-reaching implications for us today as we envisage ways of increasing the degree of delegation across the public service.
Responsible and efficient management implies clearly defined duties and the authority to carry them out. Excessive centralisation can frustrate attempts to uphold this principle. Only through effective delegation can we be sure that the right people are always doing their right job, and that no more resources are deployed than are required to do the job. This sounds very simple and sensible but it has frequently proven problematic in practice. I will be urging the introduction of more effective ways of achieving greater delegation, of ensuring that decisions are being taken at the right level and being carried through by those best able to address the real needs of the situation.
In this context, I believe that the conventional interpretation of the Ministers and Secretaries Act, merits reassessment. I am, therefore, asking my officials to look afresh at the Act with a view to determing whether amending legislation is needed to ensure a more thoroughgoing delegation of ministerial responsibility than is commonly thought possible at present. I am doing the work but am not the payroll — I can read Deputy McCreevy's mind and I will say it for him.
It is possible that in practice we have adopted a somewhat narrow and restrictive interpretation of the 1924 Act which may unintentionally have acted to constrain the degree to which the delegation or devolution of responsibility is practised in the public service.
Delegation in turn implies accountability. There is no point in managing a large organisation if one does not have a reliable means of assessing its performance. Those entrusted with the provision of services in the public interest and for the common good should be required at all times to provide evidence that they are doing so effectively, in accordance with the wishes of the Government, and in a manner which ensures the best value for money.
It is fair to say that accountability within the public service has not always been given the attention it deserves, an understatement, I suggest. Granted, individual civil servants are accountable to their superiors and, in turn, to their Minister but the mechanisms underpinning this accountability are often poorly defined, rendering a rigorous assessment of performance a problematic, if not impossible, tasks. Any programme of reform worth its salt must address the question of accountability, and the extent to which individual public servants can be held fully answerable for their actions, with the minimum fuss and delay. Experience has shown that such an ideal, in any form of employment, whether in the public or private sector, can be difficult to achieve in practice. I hope, during my term of office, to tackle this issue and help to bring about a system of public service management which makes it easier to assess performance, at the level of both the individual public servant and his or her organisation as a whole.
A robust system of accountability and effective delegation in turn depends upon transparency across all layers of management. Of all institutions, the Civil Service is probably uppermost in the minds of most people as an example of an organisation imbued with secretiveness, of limited disclosure, and of vagueness in relation to the ways in which decisions are made and communicated. True accountability and transparency in any bureaucracy cannot be assured without effective legislative support. I am anxious to see to what extent existing mechanisms need to be strengthened and how those being called to account can have confidence in the process. To this end, I will be looking at what legislation is needed in relation to the compellability and privilege of those appearing before Dáil Committees and the like, particularly in the light of our present experiences arising from the proceedings of the Committee on Legislation and Security.
This Government is also committed to the introduction of freedom of information legislation. I regard this as central to any administrative reform of the public service and, when enacted, I will be responsible for implementing its provisions and ensuring that it makes the desired contribution to greater openness and transparency. In this regard, the Government has also indicated its intention to review the Official Secrets Act and the Data Protection Act.
Ideally, we want an administrative framework which is more liberal in its approach to the sharing and exchange of information. We want to know where responsibility lies for particular decisions and the basis on which they were made. This has not always been possible to date. I am sure we are all familiar with cases of citizens having been frustrated in their attempts to secure information to which they consider themselves entitled. I want a situation which not only guarantees greater equity and transparency in this area but one in which all necessary information is supplied with the minimum formality and delay. In my experience, the majority of public servants are highly committed people, dedicated to ensureing the highest level of service and fair treatment. However, without the necessary legislative support, such as a freedom of information Act, there are real practical limitations on the extent to which any administrative structure can embody the kinds of safeguards we all expect in a modern, open and democratic society.
Interestingly, having chided the Labour Party and Democratic Left for not being present for the debate I see the Progressive Democrats have such little interest in the job remit of the two Ministers of State concerned that they have left the House, a point worth noting.
I adverted several times to the quality of service received by the public. A variety of Departments and other public bodies deliver a vast range of services, such as health, social welfare, tax administration, transport, post and telecommunications and energy, to name but a few. When the previous Taoiseach introduced the strategic management initiative early last year, he correctly identified service to the public as one of the cornerstones of any programme of reform. It is all too easy to become preoccupied with details and to forget that the overriding consideration, every time, is the customer, the citizen, the taxpayer. Unless this underlies all strategic considerations, the overall direction pursued by the organisation is flawed.
We should learn the lesson of industry, or private business. Few commercial concerns would survive today unless they focused clearly on the needs of the customer and continued to adapt over time in a fast changing environment. I believe we should expect no less of the public service. While an exact translation of commercial principles and attitudes would not be appropriate, there is no doubt that the public service would benefit from the kind of vigorous introspection which has helped modern successful industries and service sector enterprises to focus on their customers.
It is only right that I should acknowledge the important advances which have already been made in the area of services to the public by many of our Departments and public bodies. The SMI is designed to further these changes, to instil the disciplines which will result in a progressively more responsive, adaptable and resilient public service, where the norm is one of excellence in the provision of services to the public and the recognition that the public, as customer and taxpayer, deserves no less. To reinforce this approach, I expect each Department and public body, particularly those that have extensive dealings with the public, to take every reasonable step to make their customers fully aware of the services they provide and of the standard of service to which each individual is entitled.
The Programme for Government includes a commitment to extend the powers of the Ombudsman through the introduction of an administrative procedures Act which has the aim of securing maximum compliance with the tenets of good public administration, including service to the public. This will give a further means of redress to consumers of public services. I have no doubt, however, that it will help to break down the walls of formality between the citizen, on one hand, and public service officials on the other. This and similar measures will help to generate an ethos in which quality, responsiveness and equity in the provision of services will be a major factor in shaping public service management decisions at all levels.
None of this can be achieved overnight. The strategic management initiative, however, is a significant step towards ensuring that we have a public service in which realistic and workable measures of performance allow us to monitor its activities and gauge its success in achieving the objectives set by Government. We must recognise that the attendant programme of reform will extend beyond the lifetime of the present Dáil. Experience in other countries has shown that successful and lasting reform of large and complex organisations takes many years to bring about. Fiat and edict are not enough. Without ongoing political commitment, extending over several years, even the most detailed programme for change will gradually run out of steam and constitute little more than a cosmetic exercise. This is not what I want. Lasting changes can only be realised by touching and transforming the cultural factors which underpin all human behaviour. We are talking about a major change of mind set. Any cultural change is not easy to achieve, nor is it easy to measure. For this reason I will seek to ensure that the SMI process includes careful consideration of the intangible, cultural factors which give all organisations, including Government Departments, their characteristic ethos and identity. The SMI is not intended to impose an ideal structure from above but to facilitate a progressive process of change from within each Department and public body, having regard to the needs and opinions of all concerned. I propose to work with staff interests in developing a better, more efficient, flexible and forward-looking public service for the consumer, one adapted to the needs of the next century, the next millennium.
These are some of the issues and challenges which we must consider and address in bringing about meaningful reform of the public service. I believe the prospects for reform are excellent. Many beneficial changes have been achieved in recent years. For example, information technology is beginning to take root in the operations of practically all Departments and offices but more progress is needed there. The Civil Service has adapted also to the system of three year administrative budgets. The extension of the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General to include value-for-money audits is another significant step towards better management of resources. The attitude to information as a resource has gained general acceptance and management as a science is now held in higher regard than ever before. Most Departments have a healthy respect for organisational change and the need to review their operations on a regular basis. Using the SMI, I intend to build on this promising base to produce a programme of reform which enjoys widespread acceptance both within the public service and from the public at large for whom the services are provided.
I have set out here what, by any standards, is a very formidable remit for any Minister of State. I have indicated the scale of the task and outlined its complexity. It is with great facility that I can totally support the decision of the Taoiseach to assign such a significant task to a Minister of State primarily dedicated to its achievement.
I should like to comment on the change in Fine Gael policy. On the last two occasions the number of Ministers of State was expanded, Fine Gael complained bitterly that the Minister for Finance and the Public Service — not the Taoiseach — introduced the Bill. They felt that on an issue of such fundamental importance it should be the Taoiseach. As reported at column 130 of the Official Report of 2 November 1977, volume 301, Deputy Barry stated:
I know that technically the Bill is under the control of the Minister for the Public Service. But that would not dispense the Government from the courtesy to the House and the country of the Taoiseach introducing the Bill in the House and explaining to us exactly why it is necessary at this point to extend the officeholders to ten....
Deputy Garret FitzGerald made the same point as Deputy Barry in 1990. Referring to the extension of the number of Ministers at that stage he said it did the House, the Government, democracy or politics no good to extend the number in that way.
If ever there was a case for a Taoiseach to come into the House and explain what is happening, this is it. I have no difficulty with the tasks assigned to the two Ministers. I wish Deputy Doyle well in her post but I doubt if it is possible for any human to carry out all the tasks assigned to her in the remit she read out and, indeed, in the one read by the Minister for Finance.
Superwoman.
I wish her well with those tasks. The Minister for Finance stated that the west has been beset by a self-perpetuating economic malaise. He stated:
With the declining population, services have been reduced and economic activity has declined, leading in turn to further depopulation. This population haemorrhage must be stopped. Our hope and expectation is that the population of the west will have stabilised by the end of the decade.
He then read Deputy Carey's remit which is right and appropriate and with which we all agree. Why has the Minister of State with responsibility for the West been appointed only because he was not appointed to the post of Leas-Cheann Comhairle? That appointment creates a major credibility problem for the Government since the Taoiseach had announced he intended appointing Deputy Carey as Leas-Cheann Comhairle, which appointment did not succeed for reasons already outlined in the House. The Taoiseach decided, as an afterthought, that he would appoint a Minister of State with responsibility for the West. While we fully approve of that appointment in fairness to the people of the West, it should be made clear that, had the Taoiseach succeeded in appointing Deputy Carey as Leas-Cheann Comhairle, there would not have been a Minister with responsibility for the West.
We would have had another one.
We would not have had another Minister with responsibility for the West. While speaking about the West, perhaps that portfolio should include the whole of Connacht-Ulster and examine the number of Ministers and Ministers of State representing those eight counties. There is one Fine Gael Minister, Deputy Enda Kenny, Minister for Tourism and Trade and there is a Labour Minister in Galway city, very far removed from Border areas. If one examines what the Minister for Finance had to say about the West, one could just as easily use the same arguments about the Border counties and region generally. Not only is that recognised by everybody here, with the apparent exception of the Government, it is recognised by the European Union which has provided special funding for internal frontiers in member states. Of course, Border counties have benefited from INTERREG I and will again under INTERREG II. Indeed if one takes account of the problems on this side of the Border resulting from the troubles in the northern part of the island over the past 25 years, one realises there is a special case for at least having a Minister or Minister of State located in one of the Border counties. Yet the counties of Donegal, Leitrim, Cavan, Monaghan and Louth have been totally ignored by this Government. Perhaps in many ways that is not surprising because, in the last Coalition Government led by Deputy Dr. Fitzgerald, the Border counties were ignored except in so far as under his leadership, as Taoiseach and that of his Minister for Finance, the new Taoiseach, the economy of the Border counties was almost wrecked, at which time people crossed in their hundreds and thousands to the North to buy goods. Only when former Deputy Ray MacSharry became Minister for Finance was that problem corrected.
In dealing with what the Minister for Finance had to say about the appointment of Deputy Avril Doyle as Minister of State, among whose tasks will be the development of the strategic management initiative, I pay tribute to our public service. We are particularly fortunate in having public servants of the calibre we do in every Department. They serve our people extremely well.
The Minister for Finance said:
The primary objective of the SMI is to put in place, in each Department and public service agency, a management process that is focused on ensuring continuous improvements in the performance of the civil and wider public service in relation to the contribution that they can make to national development; the provision of services to the public and the efficient and effective use of resources.
Bearing in mind what will constitute a small portion only of the duties of Deputy Avril Doyle as Minister of State, it would appear that she has an almost impossible task. Why has she been appointed to three Departments only, seeing that the Minister for Finance said her duties would extend into every Department? They might as well have appointed her Minister of State at every Department because a number of Ministers of State in this Government have already been assigned to a whole range of Departments. What sort of service will be provided for them? What sort of service will be provided for the Minister of State with responsibility for child care, Deputy Currie? Will he have an office assigned to him in three Departments? Will he have back-up staff in each of those Departments? We are entitled to know, particularly in terms of the openness and transparency about which we hear so much.
What will be the relationship of Deputy Avril Doyle as Minister of State with the relevant Ministers since the tasks assigned her are properly those of the Ministers in charge of the relevant Departments? From the point of view of the rainbow Coalition, I suppose there is certain merit in having the Minister of State, Deputy Hogan, and Deputy Doyle as Minister of State located in the Department of Finance to keep an eye on the Minister for Finance on behalf of Fine Gael.
Tight marking.
That is the unofficial part of my job description.
I accept it is not an official part of her job description but sometimes the unofficial part might be just as important.
I will not have time for any unofficial part.
The Minister for Finance went on to say:
Another important area of reform in which I expect Deputy Doyle will play a major role is in ensuring that the interests of the consumer are paramount in all dealings with the public services including State companies.
While we will agree with that sentiment why should it be necessary to augment the number of Ministers of State by two? In the interests of consumers, surely we should ensure they get value for money, that we do not expend money on Ministers of State since we already had 15 to any one of whom these tasks could have been assigned?
The Deputy has already said that I could not cope with my job as described, it is so large, so how could those tasks be shared out?
I am not saying they should be shared out; I am saying that one of the 15 already appointed could have been assigned those tasks. In terms of value for money, in the interests of consumers, at a conservative estimate the cost of the two additional Ministers of State will be at least £250,000 each. Of course, the Ministers of State will not receive that but, when one includes the cost of providing them with offices, back-up staff, secretarial staff, perhaps providing advisers from outside, programme managers, cars and drivers, that £250,000 each is a conservative estimate. My former esteemed colleague from my constituency and member of the Fine Gael party, Deputy Tom Fitzpatrick on the last occasion it was proposed to extend the number of Ministers objected and suggested what the relevant £100,000 would do for the local improvement scheme nationwide.
County roads.
The electorate would prefer to see this £500,000 spent on local improvement schemes, on improvement of county and rural roads, than on expanding the number of Ministers of State.
The Deputy will have long enough to do it; they are still disgraceful.
Even with 15 Ministers of State they did not fill the potholes. They cannot have it both ways.
With two additional Ministers of State fewer potholes will be filled.
The reform of the Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924 is important. Indeed I should have thought that augmenting the number of Ministers of State would have been addressed in that context, at which stage the Taoiseach might have made a case for it.
On the specific tasks assigned to Deputy Doyle as Minister of State, one interesting comment she made was about the commitment of the Government to the introduction of a Bill on Freedom of Information and she said how central she regarded that reform to the public service. Today the Taoiseach provided the House with a list of legislation to be introduced in the House between now and July next. That Bill we had all expected would be included, was not, apparently it was not regarded as top priority by the Taoiseach.
On the matter of protecting consumers' interests, examining State Departments and the Strategic Management Initiative, perhaps at this juncture in our history, all Departments and agencies of the State should ascertain how they can help to create jobs, the major economic and social issue we must address.
Deputy Doyle, in her capacity as a Minister of State, can play a role in that regard. For example, the inordinate delay in the processing of planning applications by local authorities is totally unacceptable. If they were processed with greater speed, that would be an opportunity for job creation. Another area that could be addressed is the disabled person's reconstruction grant. The number of officials involved in the processing of such a grant should be reduced to ensure value for money and that the process is speeded up in the interests of the public, whom we all want to serve. Every Department of State should consider how it can play a role in that regard.
When I was Minister for Health I discussed that matter many times with Department officials. Irish healthcare personnel are recognised around the world as being among the best available. For example, Irish nurses, regardless of the competition, can get jobs anywhere in the world. There are great opportunities for Departments, such as the Department of Health, to sell services abroad such as those provided by the Blood Transfusion Service Board and the National Drugs Advisory Board. The Gulf countries and China have been calling for quality control in the drugs they purchase and there are great opportunities in that area. Provisions should be included in new legislation to ensure that we get the maximum benefit from the high standing of our healthcare personnel around the world, thus improving our economy and creating jobs.
On the multiplicity of advisers and programme managers, in 1993 the present Minister for Health referred to how unethical it was to have so many advisers and to use State resources to pay programme managers. Having regard to the views expressed by some members of this Government in the past, it is interesting to note the many advisers and programme managers being appointed. Whatever about the need for programme managers. I believe they should be recruited from the public service. It is wrong to appoint party political activists as programme managers. I am glad that the Fianna Fáil party in the last Government, appointed, with one exception, civil servants as programme managers. That is the way it should be as civil servants have the experience, have come up through the service and have total allegiance to successive Governments. That is one of the great features of our public service. It should be mandatory that programme managers be recruited from the public service and that they not be party political activists.
I wish Deputy Doyle well. I hope she has a successful and enjoyable term in office, but I do not wish her a long one.
I thank the Deputy.
I hope it will not be a long term. I wish Deputy Carey success also.
I would like to confine my remarks to the topic we are discussing. I am somewhat confused about the manner in which the Opposition has approached this debate. I was confused by Deputy McDowell. He appeared to congratulate the proposed Ministers, he wished them well, assured them they had plenty of work and said they were well fit to do it. I thought he found it hard to make up his mind whether the appointments were good or bad and I though he was 50:50 in the end. He wished them success in their onerous task. Once he put that on the record I was happy.
Deputy O'Hanlon appeared to be 60:40 against the proposed ministerial appointments. He favoured the appointment of many Deputies from the west to ministerial posts. We have appointed a Minister with responsibility for the west and I hope he is happy about that; he appeared to indicate he was. He acknowledged also the capabilities and qualifications of the Deputies proposed, Deputies Carey and Doyle.
This Debate is about the appointment of the two Ministers of State to the Departments of the Taoiseach, Finance, Transport, Energy and Communications and Arts. Culture and the Gaeltacht with special responsibility for co-ordinating the Government's commitment to western development and rural renewal.
I am sure all Members will agree that, particularly in recent years, the duties and responsibilities of Ministers and Ministers of State have become very demanding. It will be agreed also that ministerial responsibilities which were combined in one ministerial post a few years ago are now being subdivided. For example, a few years ago there was one Minister responsible for Health and Social Welfare, now two Ministers are responsible for those busy Departments. Many other examples could be given of the increased workload of Ministers, whose responsibilities have made it necessary for their ministerial positions to be subdivided. Nobody in this House, nor I am sure outside it, will disagree that Ministers and Ministers of State do carry a very heavy responsibility and workload.
In this case it is jobs for the boys.
The Deputy should get it right, it is one for even the girls. If the Deputy is acting the political skinhead, he should at least be accurate.
Deputy O'Keeffe, it is a case of 50 per cent each way.
They could not have gone to better people.
Deputy Doyle is all right.
Thank you Deputy.
I have been a public representative for 21 years and have been a Member of the Oireachtas for seven years. This is the first time I have been a Member my party has been in Government. I am delighted about that and the developments that brought my party into Government. I am delighted at the experience of being a parliamentary party member when my party in Government. That has greatly changed my workload as a politician. I give this as an example to indicate the workload of a Minister or Minister of State. This change has increased my workload fourfold and improved my insight into Government. It has increased the workload and pressure on the new Ministers and Ministers of State, and has opened avenues for me to advance the needs of the constituents I represent. It has strengthened my desire to bring about changes that will benefit the public. It will mean I will have greater access to Ministers and Ministers of State in my attempts to make this country a better place for future generations. If that is the extent of change for a backbencher one can imagine the change in the workload of a Minister or Minister of State and what he or she can achieve.
I will outline examples of the experiences of Ministers of State in former Governments.
Deputies Harney and Michael McDowell were critical of the proposed appointments. Deputy Harney was a Minister of State in the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrat Government of 1989-92, I do not know the considerations that resulted in her achieving that important position, but because of her vision and drive she was able to deliver as a Minister. Despite the perceived lack of co-operation from her senior Minister at that time, Padraig Flynn, she succeeded in making this country, or at least Dublin, a better and cleaner place in which to live.
She succeeded in losing 400 jobs.
She got on well with Padraig Flynn.
She is a native of Galway.
Order, please.
There was not one line in the Deputy's speech to justify the new appointments.
Order, please, the time has come to deal with other business. Will the Deputy move that the debate be adjourned?
Let us get some money for the orthodontic service.
The Deputy had his chance.
Debate adjourned.