Vol. 832 No. 2
1. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he is satisfied with the implementation of revised sick pay arrangements in the public sector; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9442/14]
I wanted the Minister to give me an update on the implementation of the sick pay scheme across the public service. In a reply to a parliamentary question two weeks ago, the Minister told me it was at an advanced stage of drafting. I tabled another Priority Question for the first question this morning but the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform would not let the Minister take it and I have had to substitute this question. I wanted to talk to the Minister about the consolidated public sector pay rates and top-up payments, but for some reason the Department decided the Minister should not be allowed to answer that question in the Chamber today, which is most unfair.
I can be accused of many things but I am happy to answer anything anyone poses. I have no control over the questions that come in. I will go on to answer the first question that is tabled to me.
The implementation of the new single sick leave scheme for the public service generally will commence next month. The effective date for the new scheme will be 31 March 2014. The scheme is being introduced through ministerial regulations which are provided for in the recently enacted Public Service Management (Recruitment and Appointments) (Amendment) Act 2013. The drafting of these regulations has been a priority for my Department working closely with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel since the relevant legislation was enacted at the end of last year. The regulations are at an advanced stage of preparation. I spoke to the Attorney General about them. They will be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas as soon as possible. Preparations are also at an advanced stage to ensure an effective roll-out of the new sick leave scheme once the regulations come into effect.
I believe the Minister would have answered the Priority Question I tabled had his officials let him. I am asking him to go back to his Department and tell it to stop blocking him as Minister from answering questions and me as an Opposition spokesperson from tabling them. We had this last year. I tabled a question to the Minister asking him about the implications for State agencies that fail to comply with consolidated public sector pay scales by continuing to make top-up payments to staff and when the Minister expected to have the matter resolved. I know the Minister would have wanted to answer that question. Could he go back to his Department and tell his officials to let him answer? They will have some obtuse reason such as it was spoken about two months ago and, therefore, they think the matter is closed. They are doing this House a disservice. The Minister's Department is the Department responsible for political reform but it refused to allow that question. It referred it to the Department of Health. Someone thinks it relates exclusively to section 38 and section 39 agreements but it could relate to health or arts and culture. It could relate to many Departments.
The Psychiatric Nurses Association of Ireland has been in contact with me and has highlighted various issues and difficulties. I know it has been through the Labour Court but the association was excluded from the Labour Court procedures. The association has highlighted what we have highlighted in the House before. The unfair treatment of pregnancy related illness under this scheme is not adequately dealt with. It discriminates against people with disabilities or mental health issues and the retrospective element is unfair to people who had critical illnesses in the past. There is a new definition in this legislation but some of the people who will have no sick leave available to them to carry forward would have come in under critical illness in the past but are now being excluded. There are people who have serious difficulties. I mentioned psychiatric nurses but they could be gardaí, firemen or prison officers. These need to be addressed.
When the legislation was going through, I asked the Minister to clarify the situation whereby a person's half pay after three months could in many cases be less than the household entitlement to a social welfare payment if the person was on disability allowance and claiming for an adult dependant and their three children, but he did not provide this clarification. What happens in this case? Will the various Departments try to make a profit out of this at the expense of people's social welfare payments? I got a convoluted answer and was told to ask the Department of Social Protection, but it relates to the Minister as the employer in the public service in the first instance.
We had a long discussion about this because I provided for this in legislation for the first time. We have gone through the legislative debate, including a Committee Stage debate on these matters. I accepted an amendment in terms of doing it by way of regulation in order that we would have a chance to lay it out in some terms. I think the amendment was from Deputy Fleming although it might have been from Deputy McDonald. One of the Deputies tabled it and both supported it, which I think that is the way to do it. That has delayed the implementation of the sick leave arrangement. I thought it was the right thing to do. It also allowed me to have further discussions. If the Deputy recalls, we were waiting for the final element of the Labour Court recommendation before Christmas.
It arrived in early December.
I will not have time in these two minutes to go through the sick leave matter in detail but I have a list of questions and answers and it might be useful were I to submit it to both Deputies opposite. Deputy Sean Fleming raised the question of illness related to pregnancy. There will be critical illness issues, which are well covered and well negotiated. We have binding recommendations from the Labour Court, which have been incorporated in the new scheme. I can go through the details, but it would probably be of greater benefit were I to supply the list of questions and answers covering how the new scheme works, how it operates in respect of critical illnesses, etc. We can then revert to the matter.
The Minister might clarify why certain unions were not allowed to participate in those Labour Court hearings, for example, the Psychiatric Nurses Association of Ireland. Was it a closed shop for key negotiators? Not every trade union covered by the Haddington Road deal was fully represented. This matter will need to be addressed, as it affects everyone.
My experience of the Labour Court is that it is very open to submissions from anyone affected by its decisions. I have never heard a criticism of the Labour Court's openness to submissions and points of view as regards any decision it is about to make that impacts on any worker or set of workers. I would be surprised to hear of any. There are structures within the trade union movement in terms of how sectors are represented. As such, the Deputy's concern might fall into that category.
I have heard the argument that some people want to be excluded entirely from the sick leave arrangement. However, if I had not done this, I would be facing questions from the Deputy as to why we did not have proper, standardised sick leave arrangements throughout the public service under which everyone understood what was allowed and in which there was proper oversight. That is what we will have once these regulations become effective at the end of March.
2. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the funds that will accrue from the scheduled sale of State assets; and the purpose for which the funds will be used. [9471/14]
The question is fairly straightforward and comes in two parts. Will the Minister set out the funds that will accrue from the scheduled sale of State assets and, point by point, the purpose for which those funds will be used?
I thank the Deputy for her question. I expect to receive €400 million in special dividends arising from the sale of non-strategic assets by the ESB. The first of these transactions, the sale in November 2013 of the ESB's 50% shareholding in the Marchwood power plant in the UK, achieved a price that was in excess of expectations and resulted in approximately €153 million in dividends being received by the Exchequer in January of this year.
A consortium comprising Centrica plc, Brookfield Renewable Power Incorporated and iCON Infrastructure has been selected as the preferred bidder for Bord Gáis Energy, BGE, on the basis of a bid that puts an enterprise value of up to €1.12 billion on the business. As the BGE sale agreement has yet to be finalised - I understand we are not too far from it - it would be inappropriate for me to comment on it in further detail, but the terms of the sale will be outlined in due course when the deal has been signed.
Regarding the second part of the Deputy's question, that is, how to use those funds, she will be aware of the Government's consistent position, in that the funds released from asset disposals would be used in one form or another to support job-creating initiatives in the economy. At budget time, I factored a total of €110 million into this year's Estimates in respect of projects supported from the sale of State assets. Some €45 million of this will fund part of the advance works on the new public private partnership, PPP, projects. As the Deputy knows, a big chunk of that will go towards Grangegorman, but I can lay out the details of that and the other projects. Specifically, €25 million will be spent on the Grangegorman project and €20 million on the advanced work on roads. The remaining €65 million will be spent on the continued roll-out of the additional Exchequer investment programmes that I announced last year, those being, €25 million on energy refit for local authority houses and an additional €40 million to the schools programme. Additional elements of this stimulus plan will be rolled out as the various asset transactions are completed and moneys become available. It is hoped we will have more money to spend once the BGE amount is clarified.
If I have understood the Minister correctly, he will set out €400 million from the money in the bank from the special dividends. I understand that he must await the completion of the deal on BGE. I recall raising this matter with the Minister last December during an interview on Newstalk, when he stated that money raised from the sale of these State assets would be used to cover the cost of an early retirement scheme in the public service. He specifically instanced HSE administrators. What proportion of the €400 million does he envisage being spent in that way?
At the Minister's recent party conference, which I tuned into-----
I am pleased.
I am sure the Minister was delighted to hear that.
I hope the Deputy enjoyed Wexford, too.
I certainly did. At that conference, the Minister stated that a proportion of the money from the sale of State assets would go towards paying for flood and storm damage repairs. How much will that be, how much will go towards early retirement and how much will go towards paying down the debt?
The Deputy asked a number of questions. She will recall that I answered her first question in some detail at the committee meeting. I was asked whether I would be able to find money for voluntary redundancies among HSE administrators. I replied that we would have to find that money. However, I have allocated no money to that purpose, nor do I have immediate plans to do so. The moneys that I have allocated so far are all for the projects that I have mentioned. If the Deputy recalls, I announced an additional stimulus of €200 million from the first tranche of the national lottery sale. It went towards the same types of project, all of which I listed on budget day. I will re-list them tomorrow when I sign the national lottery contract.
I will revert to the Minister. We only have a short time remaining.
I cannot remember the Deputy's other question.
Flood damage.
And storm damage.
The Leas-Cheann Comhairle might let the Minister conclude.
Does the Deputy wish to ask a further question?
No, I would prefer to hear what the Minister has to say about flood damage. Then I will speak.
In terms of flood damage, we have made an initial allocation of €70 million. We must see how much of that will be drawn down and spent this year. We have instructed each line Department to signal that the composition of that €70 million, for example, piers, roads, harbours and so on, is spent. We will see what additional money over and above that amount is required to be spent. That is a stimulus of sorts and it may well form part of my unallocated money, but we have not made that determination yet.
We want to make some progress.
I beg the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's pardon.
What concerns me is the Minister's claim that he has consistently asserted that the proceeds from the sale of State assets were explicitly intended for job creation. However, he has referenced these moneys in different ways. He has now resiled from his position and stated that they will not be used to finance voluntary redundancies in the public service. That was not his position last December, when he stated clearly at his party conference that he envisaged these moneys being used for flood and storm damage. He also seems to be retreating from that position.
A question, please.
Given the fact that the sale of these assets, which the Minister described as non-strategic, was controversial and questionable to begin with, the least we can expect from him is a consistent position in terms of how he proposes to use the moneys.
The Minister outlined only a portion of how he intends to spend the €400 million in the kitty. I hope that he does not regard it as a slush fund of sorts that can dig him out of difficult questions in interviews or be used for speeches at his conference so that he might point to it as a way of resolving every problem under the sun.
The Deputy is well aware that we have a tight budgetary situation. Any human being seeing the disaster that befell the country in January would desperately look for some resource to give relief. It is a job-creating effort. It is a stimulus to build roads, rebuild harbours and promenades and undo the damage done by the unprecedented storms in January.
I do not think the Deputy would resist the expenditure of moneys that are available-----
The Minister just said he is not going to do that.
No. I said I have not allocated it yet. We have allocated €70 million. We have to see how that is spent and how local authorities draw it down, but we are only in the second month of the year. Everybody has a roads budget right now, and the piers and harbours budget is there first. We will see how much extra will be needed. I will have further job creation announcements to be made on foot of the prudent decisions we have made to sell these non-strategic assets, which I think will provide the type of jobs across the economy that are essential now.
3. Deputy Shane Ross asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the number of quangos abolished under this Government; the number created; the gross savings made by the reductions; the gross cost to the Exchequer of the new quangos; the net effect of the changes in quangos on public expenditure; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9472/14]
I want to ask the Minister the number of quangos abolished under this Government, the number created, the gross savings made by the reductions, the gross cost to the Exchequer of the new quangos, the net effect of the changes in quangos on public expenditure, and if he will make a statement on the matter.
As I announced when launching the new public service reform plan for 2014 to 2016 last month, I expect the State agency rationalisation programme to be completed this year. A great deal has already been delivered.
The Government made two commitments in 2011 on the rationalisation and reform of State bodies. First, we undertook to begin immediately with the implementation of 48 identified measures. Second, we agreed to review a further 46 measures targeted at broader rationalisation.
I reported last month that the original 48 measures, involving more than 100 State bodies, have either been fully delivered or will be delivered this year, apart from two measures where the Government decided on reflection not to proceed. These were measures involving the National Cancer Registry into the Department of Health and, in the transport sector, the merger of the Commission for Aviation Regulation and the Irish Aviation Authority, which we were advised at European and domestic level was not the correct course of action.
The review process was completed in the further 46 measures that the Government undertook to review, and we decided to implement 25 of those 46 measures, involving more than 100 State bodies. That will be fully completed this year. In total, full implementation of all of the rationalisation measures – the original 48 measures and the further 25 measures - will be completed. The monetary effect is very modest, with the €20 million target set out in the 2011 plan being achieved this year.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
The Deputy also asked about the number of new bodies created. As I have indicated, there are a small number of new bodies arising from the merger of two or more existing bodies, as envisaged under the rationalisation programme. There is still important work to be done and public service to be provided. The purpose of the rationalisation programme has been to deliver these services with less. For example, there are 16 new education and training boards doing what was previously done by 33 VECs. There is one new body called Quality and Qualifications Ireland doing what three separate bodies used to do.
Aside from this, there have also been a small number of other bodies established in recent years to address urgent matters of concern to the Government. Examples include where the Government had identified systemic failings of oversight, or considered a need for new resources to tackle priority issues around job creation and unemployment. I refer to the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council, NewERA and the Credit Union Restructuring Board under the Department of Finance, the Residential Institutions Statutory Fund Board and SOLAS under the Department of Education and Skills, Microfinance Ireland under the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Irish Water and the Pyrite Resolution Board under the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government, and the Property Services Regulatory Authority and the Insolvency Service of Ireland under the Department of Justice and Equality.
The rationalisation programme needs to be understood as just one of a package of reform measures, many of which represent much greater savings than the rationalisation measures. For example, the Haddington Road agreement will deliver a €1 billion saving in the cost of the public service pay and pensions bill by 2016; the targeted savings from public procurement reform are €500 million over three years and €127 million in 2014; and the Civil Service human resources and pensions shared services centre, PeoplePoint, when fully operational, will have estimated savings of €12.5 million annually.
The Minister was just coming to the meat of the question when he had to stop. Is there any way I can let him in and then come back?
Perhaps the Deputy can ask a brief question.
Can the Minister give me the figures I asked for in the first question?
The Deputy also asked about the number of new bodies created. There is a small number of new bodies arising from the merger of two or more existing bodies, as envisaged under the rationalisation programme. There is still important work to be done and public service to be provided for the purpose of the rationalisation programme. For example, there are 16 new education and training boards doing what was previously done by 33 VECs. There is one new body called Quality and Qualifications Ireland doing what three separate bodies used to do.
A small number of other bodies have also been established where the Government has identified systemic failings of oversight, or considered a need for new resources to tackle priority issues around job creation and unemployment. We have established the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council, which we were required to do under the stability treaty. We established NewERA to give proper advice on the control and ownership of State and semi-State companies. The Credit Union Restructuring Board has been established under the Department of Finance, the Residential Institutions Statutory Fund Board and SOLAS under the Department of Education and Skills, Microfinance Ireland under the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Irish Water and the Pyrite Resolution Board - a temporary board to deal with the pyrite issue - under the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government, and the Department of Justice and Equality has established the Property Services Regulatory Authority and the Insolvency Service of Ireland to deal with the mortgages issue
I thank the Minister for his moderately incomplete reply. I am trying to get a handle on the net savings or the net cost to the Exchequer resulting from the reduction in quangos and the creation of quangos. I know the Minister probably cannot tell me exactly, because some of them are not operating, but it would be important to know whether any savings are being made at all.
There was a mushrooming of these quangos during the lifetime of the previous Government, especially under Bertie Ahern.
Can the Deputy name one quango we should abolish?
I know he is very good at interrupting, but he should let me finish. I have very little time. A huge number of quangos were created under social partnership, some of which had to go, some of which have not gone and are still there.
Like what?
If I could speak without interruption, I would be really grateful. I would like to go on to my second question, and then the Minister can ask me questions and we can reverse roles if he likes. The creation of quangos also creates a huge number of paid directors. That creates a power of political patronage, which all governments are inclined to use. During the last Global Irish Economic Forum, at which this Government was well represented and of which it approved, one of the more constructive suggestions was from ex-pats outside Ireland who offered their services free of charge to semi-State bodies. How many of these people, with great business experience, have had their offer accepted?
There is an open invite on www.publicjobs.ie. We invite everyone who is interested in applying for any State position to do so, and many have and many have been accepted. The quango issue is a lovely thing to throw away, but when we specifically ask about the quangos we are talking about, we find the big expensive quangos are the IDA, Enterprise Ireland, the National Roads Authority, and the Environmental Protection Agency. They are doing incredibly important work.
FÁS.
FÁS was abolished.
It is now SOLAS.
SOLAS is a new training authority. Should we not have a training body?
It is huge.
It is doing important work. We have a huge set of reform measures, with more than 200 implemented. I know that abolishing or burning a quango makes for a nice tabloid headline, but the real hard work is to save €500 million on procurement over three years, which are we going to do. We will save €127 million this year. To save an additional €1 billion on public pay took six months of hard graft through the Haddington Road agreement. We have established a new Civil Service human resource and pensions shared service centre, PeoplePoint. That is now well on the way to being fully operational and will save €12.5 million every year.
4. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the reason the State missed a deadline for an upgrade to IT systems across Government Departments resulting in an additional cost of €3.3 million being incurred; the way a recurrence can be prevented; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9708/14]
I would like to ask the Minister why the State missed a deadline on 8 April 2014 for an upgrade to IT systems across a number of Departments, resulting in an additional cost of €3.3 million being paid to Microsoft, and if he will comment.
The deadline referred to in the Deputy's question relates to the cessation of general support for certain Microsoft products in use across a number of Government agencies. My Department has been aware of the forthcoming deadline for some time and has been actively investigating its likely impact on IT systems across the public service.
Responsibility for the delivery of their computing services rests with each organisation.
My Department offers support services only.
With regard to the products in question, organisations have the option of upgrading to a more modern version or finding alternative solutions. Many have already done so by upgrading the systems concerned. These include my Department and the Departments of Finance, Environment, Community and Local Government, Education and Skills and Social Protection.
The Office of the Government Chief Information Officer has engaged with other public bodies and Microsoft regarding the implications of running unsupported software. The discussions focused on the remedial measures that could be put in place and identifying those organisations that wished to be included in an extended support arrangement. As a result, an agreement has been reached with Microsoft to allow Departments and their agencies to avail of extended support for a range of products from 8 April 2014. The agreement will enable public bodies to receive support for these products for a 12 month period under the terms of a memorandum of understanding. The figure of €3.3 million represents a cap on the total cost of such support arrangements for agencies availing of the memorandum of understanding. Initial estimates obtained by my Department put the cost of proceeding with extended support without a central agreement at approximately €14 million.
It is a matter for each agency to avail of the support available under the terms of the memorandum of understanding, which provides them with a one year window of opportunity for migrating their applications and hardware to a more modern and supported operating system. Any agency availing of this agreement must develop a plan to migrate from the affected products before the expiration of the agreement to ensure they will no longer be at risk.
Will the Minister explain what will happen in April 2014 when the cut-off arrangements will apply? What will be the cost to various Departments of winding down the Windows XP operating system, for which support will be eliminated in the coming 12 months? I understand some of the Departments will move to the Windows 8 operating system. Will the Minister confirm that the process will not result in a risk for customers in respect of the records held in the Department of Health and the Department of Justice and Equality? These are sensitive areas and it would be highly unfortunate if any of this information were to be leaked. We all remember what occurred when information technology glitches occurred in Ulster Bank and elsewhere. Is it possible such problems could arise in this process?
I understand the issue was dealt with long before the deadline in the case of approximately 90% of the computers where the problem was identified. Why have so many computers in the public service been affected by the problem, which will cost €3.8 million to correct? How many computers or laptops will require the patch in the next 12 months?
I am afraid I am not what is known as a techie and the Deputy's question forces me to stray into unfamiliar territory. The advice available to me is that public and private organisations throughout the world are facing exactly the same issue. The reason for the delay is that people liked the Windows XP operating system and many chose not to migrate to the updated system because they considered it to be less user-friendly. This was the case in my Department and, as I indicated, we updated our system more recently.
Supports are available and all agencies can buy into them to ensure security in the next 12 months, and they must have a plan to migrate to an equally secure system thereafter. This means they must update their systems in the next 12 months. We secured a good deal on the €3.8 million cost ceiling to be expended by Microsoft. The process is designed to ensure all agencies can buy into it.
I do not consider it a good deal when one must spend money because a deadline was missed. The Minister may argue that the position could have been much worse but the problem should not have occurred in the first instance. There should have been proper planning. What role will the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer have in ensuring agencies do not run up against a brick wall? Given the Minister's acknowledgement that various Departments and agencies must migrate to a new operating system within 12 months, what will be the overall cost? Is the chief information officer fully equipped to ensure similar deadlines will not apply to other operating systems being used in the public service? I have only highlighted one such deadline. Will the Minister provide a guarantee that no other such problems arise in the public service?
As I indicated, my Department does not run the information technology systems operating in all the Departments and State agencies. This is done by in-house administrative services. My Department provides a support system. I established the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer. All public bodies have been made aware of the deadline and have been working to limit any exposure in advance of the April 2014 deadline. The Office of the Government Chief Information Officer has engaged with the agencies which have sought its support and assistance and has engaged with Microsoft to ensure all agencies experience as little risk as possible. Departments and agencies have a choice of either signing up to the memorandum of understanding or upgrading their systems in advance of the deadline. My Department and others have decided to upgrade in advance of the date, while others will avail of the memorandum of understanding and determine in the next year what is the most appropriate system for them.
5. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he will indicate, in respect of overall workforce planning within the public service, if there is a planned response to instances where the recruitment embargo is relaxed for individual Departments and-or agencies or if it is the case that embargoes are only lifted in cases where management repeatedly requests that recruitment take place; the factors that are taken into consideration when deciding to make exceptions to the recruitment embargo; if there is any long-term plan to address specific workforce shortage areas without jeopardising overall staff resources across the public service; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9672/14]
I have asked similar questions to this one on a number of occasions. My primary objective is to ascertain how the Department will decide where to lift the public service recruitment embargo. We are all aware of areas where public service staff numbers are unevenly balanced. This sometimes impacts on the productivity of public services. I heard on the radio this morning, for example, that patients are being kept in ambulances because beds are not available for them. That is the background to the question.
Last month, I launched a new public service reform plan for the next three years. Building on the achievements of the previous plan, the new plan sets out ambitious new reform targets for the public service. It sets out a very clear vision for each of the main sectors within the public service, namely, health, education, local government, justice and the Civil Service. Underpinning each of the specific sectoral objectives is a recognition of the need for sectoral managers across the public service to better and more quickly align resources and staff to meet service need and identify savings to be reinvested in front-line services.
In the reform plan and the Haddington Road agreement I provided a very clear strategic path for the future of the public service. It is now a matter for public service managers to deliver the new reforms, embrace the initiatives set out in the reform plan and make full use of all the tools available under the Haddington Road agreement.
I am aware from previous questions asked by the Deputy that she is concerned about the disparity between the number of public servants available in different areas. For example, workers in one local authority may have to cater for a much larger population than a similar number of workers in another local authority area. The Deputy has made this point well and I agree with her on the matter. One could also examine issues related to the disposition of nursing staff in providing a service to the same cohort of population. Differences have developed historically and it is very difficult in a time of limited resources to redress these imbalances. However, I take cognisance of and acknowledge the validity of the points the Deputy has made on this issue.
If consideration is being given to relaxing the embargo on public service recruitment, is a workforce planning framework in place against which one could match numbers? Until now, most of the discussion on reform has been focused on cutting costs. A real reform programme must be focused on delivering services differently and redressing the imbalance in public service numbers to close gaps in services. Why should one part of the country have much higher class sizes or a much smaller budget for youth services than other parts of the country? Is each Department engaged in workforce planning and is this matched against the relaxation of the public service recruitment embargo? Alternatively, are people making a strong argument for relaxing the embargo and, if so, what is the nature of these arguments?
I strongly agree with the first point the Deputy made. There was a clear emphasis on cost reduction in the first wave of reforms. However, we implemented the cost reduction in an innovative manner to ensure we delivered services more efficiently. More than 400 public services are now available online and we are examining the top 20 transactions people engage in to ascertain if they can be completed more efficiently and effectively.
As indicated in my response to Deputy Ross, we have looked at a lot of the back-office supports, including payroll and human resources management and so on, in the context of having shared services, thereby releasing money and staff to be reinvested in the front line. I was then able, for example, to relax the embargo on Garda recruitment. Along with the additional gardaí to be recruited this year, more than 900 resource teachers are being recruited and additional SNAs will also be deployed. We are using what I term the "reform dividend" of back-office savings to front-load front-line services.
That requires investment in, for example, IT systems that communicate with each other. If a patient is left on a trolley in an ambulance because there is no hospital trolley or bed available, that essentially is a productivity issue in terms of the use of an ambulance. Everything must fit together. The Norwegian system, which includes a huge public service platform that is based on a good IT system, has produced gigantic savings, but they had to invest heavily in it.
I wish that as Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform I had Norwegian oil. We could then have extraordinarily good public platforms. Norway has the biggest reserves of money of any country in Europe.
In regard to the Deputy's point, we are investing. We are investing to save. That is the reason we had to front-load People Point. We had to ensure we had people in training. An important part of the second wave of reforms I have announced goes to the point about management made by the Deputy. The notion that the number of trolleys and ambulances would not be in sync is a management issue. People take responsibility for this. The purpose of the proposals in relation to upskilling and training is to ensure people doing particular jobs are fit to do them. We must ensure we do not, as has happened in the past, appoint somebody to the position of procurement or personnel officer without any prior training. We can then make them accountable. The Deputy will be aware that a series of town hall meetings have been held to obtain the views of public servants on how these important issues can be addressed.
