Vol. 567 No. 5
87 Mr. Cuffe asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs if he has identified reductions in his Department in light of the decision announced in the budget to seek a reduction of 5,000 positions in the public service. [14429/03]
I am confident that reductions of the order necessary to achieve the overall target can be made over the three-year period without significant negative effects on my Department. Given the relatively small number of staff in my Department, the number of posts to be lost will be small. Specific posts have not been identified so as to maintain as much flexibility as possible in relation to the deployment of staff.
Is the Minister prepared to indicate the number of staff reductions per year he has been asked to achieve by the Department of Finance? The question in Deputy Cuffe's name was meant to elicit information not only about the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, but also about agencies that are within the Department's remit. Does the Minister accept that there is a danger that many people involved in community development work who are employed on temporary and short-term contracts will lose their positions, for example if their contracts are not renewed, as a result of the fact that this type of threat is hanging over them by Government diktat?
The Government's view in relation to this issue is quite clear and my view is the Government's view. Anyone who tries to elicit from a Minister a view other than the Government's view is looking for something that is unconstitutional, as we are bound by the collectivity of Government.
Can I have the Government's view then?
The Government view is that we are seeking a reduction of 5,000 positions in the public service. Perhaps my approach to this is slightly different from that of the Deputy. My view is that the Government services should be staffed by reference to the number of people needed to do the job effectively. That is what should inform our staffing levels.
The Minister is not the one doing it.
Obviously, Deputy Boyle does not share that view. The question states: "if he has identified such reductions in his Department". There is no reference to anybody outside my Department.
The Minister for Finance made clear in his budget speech that he is seeking a reduction of 5,000 staff in the Civil Service.
The public service.
He was talking not only about Departments but all Government agencies. Fears were expressed particularly in regard to health boards and cuts within education. I put a specific set of circumstances to the Minister about the number of people engaged in community development work funded through his auspices on temporary and part-time contracts who are under threat from this type of Government provision. I would like a response from him.
That is not the question Deputy Boyle submitted to my Department. It is the Deputy's privilege to put down a question but having put it down he should not pretend that he put down a different one. The question is quite specific and refers to the Department. I am more than willing to share my thoughts on the broader issue that he has now raised. It is not the subject of the question but I am in a tolerant humour today and I will try to give as much information to the Deputy as possible.
If the Minister was not in a good humour we might not get the answer.
The two major agencies which are directly funded by my Department are Údarás na Gaeltachta and ADM. They do not have very large numbers of staff. Údarás has a basic level of staff of about 119. If one takes that pro rata across the public service in total – because this relates to the greater public service, I think there is 90% in the health service alone – one will see that any cut across those bodies would be very small and quite manageable within the staffing complements. I presume other bodies refers to CDSPs, partnerships and so on. Normally the staffing levels in these organisations are quite small and it would not have any significant impact on them. If this is followed through on an absolute pro rata basis, which I would not expect to happen, one would be literally talking about fractions of a position. The question could be asked as to how one could have a fraction of a position but with different working systems, work sharing and so on, that is a possibility.
I am extremely worried about the lack of critical personnel in Departments, let it be this one or any other. Currently REPS grants are not being paid because critical people are not in place. Likewise, farm building grants are not being paid because critical people are not in place. Can the Minister guarantee that in his Department he will ensure that critical personnel will be retained and that there will be some common sense approach. Community groups and others should not be asked to bear the same problems as the farming community is today under REPS and farm building grants.
Was consideration given to the demand for fluent Irish speakers in the public service arising from the provisions of the Official Languages Bill in regard to the reduction in the 5,000 positions?
Of course. Once we enact this legislation Departments will have to take that into consideration from now on in their recruitment policies.
On the question asked by Deputy Crawford, it is my view that it is absolutely important to provide an efficient service to the public. It is not all about numbers. Most people would say they get quite an efficient service from the CLÁR programme which is run by four staff members. The islands programme in my Department also has a staff complement of four. The focus should be on efficient delivery of service rather than simply having numbers. I have always believed that, both in my time working as a manager and as a Minister.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
