Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 17 Jul 2012

Vol. 216 No. 14

Adjournment Matters

Local Government Reform

I welcome the Minister to the House and I thank him for his attendance for the Adjournment debate. Two Members, Senators Bradford and Landy, have raised similar motions.

I welcome the Minister and I am glad my colleague, Senator Landy, is also raising the subject of local government reform. We are speaking with less than two years to go until the local government elections. While the timescale is getter shorter it still gives the Minister, the Government and the House an opportunity to make final decisions on the structures, role and size of local government but decisions will be required in the very near future. I hope the Minister will indicate his current thinking on the situation. This matter has been debated previously in the House but decisions will need to be taken in the very near future. The Minister has both the opportunity and the challenge of deciding the future of local government and of putting structures in place which are to last for 25 to 40 years. It has been at least a political generation since significant local government reform took place and the structure now requires another reform. We will need to have a debate about the size of town and county councils, the possibility of sub-structures and the format of same. I do not wish to be prescriptive but I ask that these decisions are made soon so that current local councillors and the hundreds of people who are interested in running in the local government elections would have a reasonable idea in sufficient time of what will be the new structures and powers of local authorities. This debate will continue until the elections in 2014 but I ask the Minister to provide an interim report.

I welcome the Minister to the House and wish him and his county all the best in Semple stadium in two weeks time. I look forward to Kilkenny winning in order that we can meet again.

That is not relevant to the Adjournment debate.

It is very relevant because it is about county boundaries.

The Senator is very parochial.

I am also seeking an update from the Minister about the future of local government. I know common ground has been reached on this matter between the Government parties and across the political spectrum but we are no closer to a definite announcement——

Tell the people why.

Many councillors are contacting me and the three associations representing councillors, AMAI, LAMA and ACC, have been in contact with spokespersons and with individual Oireachtas Members in recent weeks. They are asking for some final decisions on the process. I commend the Minister on his decision to take action on this rather than go through a process of producing Green Papers and White Papers, as was done on so many other occasions. I am anxious to ensure that the urbanised society in which we all now live can continue and that the structures put in place will facilitate this. We currently have the least representative local government system in Europe, and we do not wish to see that slipping further.

Reform should not mean reduction in representation but simply reform. As Senator Bradford said, powers must be devolved from central government and there must be a rebalance of powers between the current executive management at local government level and councillors. Most important, we must have some sign of a timescale on this issue. The horse can eat grass for only so long; eventually it will need proper feed. I would appreciate if the Minister could give us an update on this matter.

I am aware that the Acting Chairman has a deep interest in these matters too.

Indeed and I thank the Minister for noting it. Today is the tenth anniversary of my third election to the Seanad.

I thank Senators Bradford and Landy for raising this matter. Theyhave a genuine interest in local government reform and a genuine interaction with localrepresentatives. The Government's broad policy approach to local government reform was set out in the programme for Government. My approach to taking this forward has been characterised by initial decisions in the cases of Limerick and Tipperary, which I made early in the Government's term of office. I also established the Waterford local government committee to consider whether Waterford city and county councils should be unified, and the report of this committee has been examined. In addition, a considerable amount of work has been under way for the past eight to nine months relating to the implementation of the local government efficiency agenda, the alignment of the local government and local development sectors, and how to implement plans at local level through new means of local government funding.

To build on this progress, I intend to bring proposals to the Government very shortly for an extensive programme to reform and develop the local government system. I assure the Senators I will not hold this up in any way. Subject to the Government's decisions, I propose to publish a comprehensive policy statement setting out a vision for the future of local government and proposals to achieve it in the form of an action programme on local government. I agree with Senator Landy that we could have Green Papers and White Papers but what is needed now is an action programme for reforming the system.

There will be a particular focus in this programme on strengthening the structures of local government generally at each level of the system — regional, county and sub-county. Any structure that exists should ensure that it has a meaningful existence and that it has sufficient power and responsibility to act at that level. There will be a strong emphasis on strengthening and expanding the role of local government, with an indication of functions that have potential for devolution from central level to local level and where greater delegation of responsibility or reduction of central control is proposed. lmportantly, this includes strengthening and clarifying the role of local government in economic development and enterprise support. This is underpinned already by the decision to establish the new local enterprise offices in local authorities, integrating the micro-enterprise support functions of the county and city enterprise boards with local authorities' business support units.

An important element of the programme will be to continue and reinforce measures to maximise operational and organisational efficiency, with particular reference to the implementation of the local government efficiency review measures. There will also be emphasis on improving local government performance generally and the standard of service that it provides for citizens. When more people are paying for more services, the least they can expect is a good standard and quality of service. A range of issues that are essential components of a modern system of local government will also be addressed. This includes: providing for a robust framework of governance, with effective arrangements and mechanisms for policy formulation; accountability; oversight of local authority performance at executive level; ethical standards for councillors and employees; local political and executive leadership; and effective citizen participation and engagement in local authority affairs. There must be a rebalancing between the powers of management and executive and those of the local democratically-elected councillors.

The programme will indicate the arrangements required to implement the reform programme and certain issues that will be the subject of further policy development work. Whatever we propose will require legislation, so there is an opportunity to enhance the programme or policy of reform when the legislative programme will be giving effect to those reforms in 2013. Of course, proposals to put in place a sound, stable and equitable system of local government funding, with a significant element of local responsibility for raising resources and deciding spending priorities, is fundamental to the reform and development of local government. Opportunities for local funding is a key essential to ensuring there is greater autonomy for the local elected representative. The ultimate aim of the action programme is to have a local government system that supports a good quality of life and delivers value for money for people in local communities, and that makes a substantial contribution to the national recovery effort.

Work on the development of policy proposals for Government consideration in this area is informed by the extensive analysis that has already taken place on local government reform over the past 20 years. I have received submissions, even up to recently, from councillors throughout the country. I thank the 21% of them who responded to the recent survey and the local government representative associations. Individual local authorities have made submissions over the years and principally in the past year. I have engaged with all the representative organisations, as well as with many individuals, about reform of local government. The publication of the action programme on local government will provide a further opportunity for public comment and input ahead of the development of the legislation, and the legislation will also provide an opportunity to Senators and Deputies to further advance any additional measures they wish to include. The content of local government reform legislation will be a matter for Government decision in the first instance and will, of course, be the subject of Oireachtas scrutiny and debate in the normal way.

I hope that whatever proposals on policy for local government reform that emerge in the context of our public statement will be meaningful and will give an additional opportunity to people to engage robustly on the new opportunities for local government, where it will have more power, more devolution of responsibility, more opportunities for funding and better structures for the elected member. That will give greater accountability for the money that is spent at local level and councillors will be in a better position to scrutinise the management and executive of the local authority with the additional powers and responsibility given to them, so there will be a meaningful opportunity for them to engage with the executive to deliver better quality services for the people who elected them.

The Minister indicated that 21% of councillors responded to the survey. On a lighter note, he will recall that when our mutual friend, the late Senator Jackie Daly, conducted a similar survey on local government and I believe he received a 100% response.

On a point of information, our great friend, the late Senator Jack Daly, carried out a survey to find out whether the 1984 local elections should be postponed, and he received an 85% response.

And 100% support. On the action programme which the Minister will publish in the near future, the Minister indicated that it will allow for an input before the drafting of legislation. Will the action programme contain his decisions regarding the structures of local government, the number of town and county councillors and so forth, or is the action programme the first part of a phase that will lead to an announcement on the future of county councils, town councils, numbers and so forth? My question is on behalf of the councillors who contacted me. When will the Minister announce the number of councillors, the size of the areas and the future of town councils? Will that be in the action programme? It does not have to be. It is important that we have this ongoing and broad debate. Let us get it right rather than rush it. Will the action programme allow the ongoing process to continue, in terms of the debate for and against big councils, small councils and so forth? When will those decisions be made?

I can confirm to the Senator that as part of the policy statement a boundary commission will have to be established for the purpose of looking at the wards in each county and local government area. That will be established by early September with a view to reporting in January 2013. That will give people who are interested in standing in the local elections 18 months to get their feet into the right electoral area to get the right result for themselves.

I thank the Minister for his reply. The Minister said the proposal will be brought to the Government very shortly. In hurling parlance, will we have it before the big two line out in September?

It is hard to answer that question. When I put something to the Government I always do so on the basis that there will be a positive outcome, but I cannot prejudge the discussions that take place in Cabinet. I would like to have it sooner rather than later but, in fairness to my Cabinet colleagues, they should have an input into it. They will be having an input very shortly.

Patient Transport Services

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes. This matter relates to the withdrawal of an essential service connecting Donegal and hospitals in Dublin. The service has been subsidised by the HSE, formerly the health boards, for some 38 years. The service entails the transportation to Dublin of patients with hospital appointments in the city when they are unable to receive their required medical care, attention or treatment in Letterkenny and Sligo general hospitals. Marley Coach Hire, which has operated the service for the past 38 years, received confirmation last week from the HSE that the subsidy of almost €100,000 would be withdrawn with effect from 27 July, ten days from today. The withdrawal will leave many families and ill patients, who may never even have used the service, without a service. The security of having the service will be withdrawn to make an apparent saving of €100,000. This is shameful and disgraceful, particularly given the waste within the HSE at present, despite the promises made by the Minister for Health to combat waste.

Let us consider some of the key statistics pertaining to the Department. Agency staff costs have doubled in four years and are in excess of €200 million this year, despite assurances by the Minister for Health in the Dáil last September, October and November that they would be reduced greatly. The cost of taxi services within the HSE has risen by 10%, from €26 million in 2010 to €28 million in 2011. Medico-legal payments and associated costs have risen from €39 million in 2008 to a projected €127 million this year. The overtime bill in the HSE and Department of Health was €170 million in 2011. In the first five months of this year, it has amounted to €69 million.

Despite what has been promised, the expenditure increases and waste have been escalating within the Department of Health. The service to which I refer costs only €100,000. If any of the aforementioned costs had been tackled, as promised by the Minister for Health, €100,000 would be but a drop in the ocean by comparison with the overall budget. We face over-expenditure in the Department of Health this year of at least €500 million. The returns that were to have been made to the Revenue Commissioners were late. The Department has been penalised and the interest and penalties that accrued amounted to €100,000, which is exactly what we need to keep the service open in County Donegal.

While I know the Minister of State is not directly responsible for the Department of Health, he should note there is a serious issue within the HSE owing to taxpayers' money that is unaccounted for. There is significant over-expenditure. How can individuals in County Donegal, a geographically isolated area, be expected to travel to Dublin on public transport vehicles that are not wheelchair accessible, unlike those provided by Marley Coach Hire? If patients are ill, how can they be expected to attend for emergency treatment or urgent appointments? Many of the individuals concerned are elderly. How can they be expected to navigate through the streets of Dublin on foot, taxi or connecting bus? The nature of the service is hard to contemplate for somebody who lives in Dublin city. Those from a country area depend on the kind of service that would bring one from Letterkenny General Hospital to a hospital in Dublin in the morning for an appointment and bring one home in the evening without one having to get a taxi or navigate through the city of Dublin.

This morning, a Senator spoke on "Today with Pat Kenny" about the dangers in O'Connell Street in Dublin during the day and night. The people from Donegal to whom I refer will be dropped off in O'Connell Street if the service is withdrawn. I refer to sick, elderly and disabled people. This is simply unacceptable. How can it be justified given the massive over-expenditure and freefall in the HSE, bearing in mind that the service in question is critical if the elderly and most vulnerable are to be protected when travelling to emergency hospital appointments?

I thank the Senator for raising this issue, particularly in the wider context of non-emergency patient transport.

I wish to make it clear on behalf of the Minister for Health that the HSE has no statutory responsibility to provide transport or support for patients to attend its facilities or clinics. Patient transport funding is primarily intended to provide an emergency ambulance service. The cost of non-emergency transport rose significantly over the latter part of the previous decade, as stated by the Senator, and provision was not uniform across the State. Accordingly, this was an area identified for improved budgetary control and management.

Against this background, I wish to set out the principles that underpin the HSE's operational practice for non-emergency patient transport. As a rule, patients should make their own transport arrangements, especially where public transport is available, unless there are clear clinical factors involved. HSE ambulance resources and health care personnel should be used only where there is a clinical need for such service — for example, medical or nursing support during a journey or where a stretcher is required — and the HSE should arrange other transport only when the patient is not in a position to make or fund his or her transport arrangements.

The Donegal-Dublin bus service mentioned by the Senator has been extensively subsidised by the HSE over many years, and the HSE has now reviewed the service to assess its viability. In recent years, there has been an increase in public transport services on the Donegal-Dublin route, with shorter journey times. This has resulted in fewer patients using the HSE-funded service. The review has shown that, in recent months, on average five people per day have been using the service. Additionally, Letterkenny General Hospital has in recent years sought to reduce the number of people travelling outside the region by improving and increasing services.

Given the need for the HSE to operate within available resources, it is necessary to review all costs to ensure that spending is necessary and effective and that essential core services are maintained. The level of support available at any given time for non-emergency transport is dependent on financial resources, and such resources are very limited. The cost of the subsidised bus service is now approaching €100,000 per year. Based on the number of the people using the service, the alternatives available and the cost-effectiveness, the HSE has made the decision to discontinue funding the service from 27 July 2012.

I appreciate that the Minister of State was reading a response from the Department of Health. Expenditure on the patient taxi service within the HSE in 2010 amounted to €26,025,000. Last year, which, according to a recent response to a parliamentary question, is the last year for which we have up-to-date figures, expenditure in this area rose by €1.6 million. The HSE's contention that five people per day use the bus service from Donegal is disputed by the bus operator, whom I believe has more up-to-date figures. There are question marks over the HSE's figures. However, this is not really where the argument lies; the argument is that the service is essential. The taxi budget of the HSE, which has responsibility in this area, will escalate if the service is withdrawn. How can sick people who cannot physically enter a public transport vehicle with no means of access for the disabled travel to Dublin for an essential appointment without getting a taxi paid for by the HSE? The cost incurred by the HSE will escalate if the service is withdrawn. I have spoken to staff in the health sector who have confirmed this. It is wishful thinking to say that, on the one hand, it would save €100,000, but the budget will escalate by €500 million this year. It does not make sense.

The Senator may have to find another vehicle to raise this issue. I do not know if the Minister of State can respond.

Wearing my Department of Public Expenditure and Reform hat, I can confirm to the Deputy and the House that the overruns cannot happen in the HSE this year. This was referred to in the most recent visit of the troika. Everybody must live within the budgets and how the HSE manages its budgets is a matter for the executive in the first instance. It is not the job of the Minister for Health to second-guess those decisions if there is a belief, locally, that a decision like this must be taken. I appreciate the difficulty it causes for people who previously used the service. The overruns are a reality that must be checked between now and 31 December this year.

The Minister, Deputy Reilly, made promises he did not fulfil this year.

All of those matters are under review. Where excessive overruns are in place, they will have to be curtailed. I will raise the matter with the Minister again and highlight the comments made by the Senator in the House.

Services for People with Disabilities

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I wish to raise the severe cutbacks to the service provided by St. John of God services in Drumcar, County Louth, and the effect this is having on the users of the service. St. John of God north-east services provides for the care of people with an intellectual disability and this year alone the cutbacks to the service amounted to €1.5 million. Since 2005, the cutbacks have come to over €4 million. I have first-hand experience in witnessing how the staff there have continually implemented increased efficiencies, including taking on additional responsibilities. One of the respite care workers told me that shower facilities, including gel and shampoo, used to be provided but the staff, on their own time, now buy shampoo to take in for the children or adults in respite. They have done everything possible but at this point they can no longer deliver the previous levels of service. The users and their families are now being hit with these cuts.

In the residential services alone, it will not be possible to accept any more admissions without specific funding for such places, and I and other colleagues have raised this in the Seanad in the past couple of weeks. In Drumcar there are 60 people on the waiting list, with seven in need of immediate placement. There are people in need of residential care and I am fighting hard for one particular family where a daughter is paraplegic and needs percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and 24-hour care. However, there is no place for her and age is not on the parents' side. The mother's health is also suffering, although she is providing 24-hour care for the daughter because there is no residential place available.

Since 12 June there is only one respite house in operation, while previously there were two working. As a parent of a child using the respite services, I am gutted, as are the other parents who have come to me. The children would have had access to respite every month before but respite for children is now down to ten days in the month and available for 20 days for adults. Dividing that between the 80 children seeking the services, it results in one day every eight months. People live for respite as it is the only break they get. With all the implementation of such cutbacks, if we do not seek something to alleviate the pressure in St. John of God, it will only add to the mental health issues of families and people helping to care for the service users.

The places for day services are now full; specifically, the Drumcar Park Enterprises and Venegas centres, where students would traditionally go, are full. In a recent letter received by parents from the St. John of God services, it was hesitantly indicated that there were suggestions in some forums that a way around the difficulty would be for a client to have two days of day services one week and three days the next. Thank God, it was mentioned that it is not their intention to implement this system immediately, as it would be a detrimental move. Any children leaving school at 18 know that if they fill in a CAO form or college application, they know where they are going. It is awful that the most vulnerable children are being hardest hit.

The St. John of God services also used to traditionally give a weekly allowance to clients. It was a pittance but it meant much to those people, bringing a feeling of independence. The clients cannot understand how they have lost what they call their money for their work, or the part-time jobs in some of the service units within the St. John of God service.

I fully support the Minister of State, Deputy Lynch, and the Government in the policy in the programme for Government to maintain people in their own homes and communities for as long as possible. In order to do this, there should be adequate support. That is where respite options come in, and people can do it if they know they will get a break. That might only be one or two nights a month. Traditionally, respite services used to be able to offer parents of children and adults two weeks holidays during the summer that could be spread out but that cannot happen. If there is a family emergency, there is no guarantee that respite will be available. When a person cannot feel there is somebody to help in an emergency, it can be very scary.

I thank the Senator, on behalf of the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, for raising this matter and I am pleased to take this opportunity to outline the current position regarding St. John of God north-east services. As the Senator is aware, St. John of God services provides services to adults and children with an intellectual disability. These services include residential, respite and day services. St. John of God north-east services is funded by the HSE under section 38 of the Health Act, 2004. Services are provided through a service arrangement which is signed on an annual basis and reviewed continually. St. John of God north-east services received significant funding from the HSE of €27.7 million in 2011.

As the Senator is aware, the disability budget nationally was cut by 3.7% in 2012. The Health Service Executive national service plan states that at least 2% of this should not impact on services and needs to be generated from other savings and increased efficiencies. The HSE has advised me that there will be a maximum reduction of 1.7% in the funding for day, residential and respite services in the north east. The HSE is working in Dublin north east to address the 2% savings required by improving integration of staffing levels and skill mix between day, transport and residential respite services to achieve cost reductions safely, with minimal impact on front line services. The HSE has assured me that it will endeavour to ensure that residential, day, respite and personal assistant services are protected where possible from reductions in front line services. However, some reductions in services will be unavoidable, even with such efficiencies. The aim will be to tailor such reductions in a way which minimises the impact on service users and their families as much as possible.

As a first step, the HSE has indicated a general reduction of 3.7% from the budget of disability agencies, pending the outcome of its discussions at a local level with individual agencies. I recognise the valuable contribution St. John of God services make to the provision of services to people with intellectual disabilities in the Louth, Monaghan and Meath areas. The HSE is very much aware of the challenges service providers, including St. John of God north-east services, are experiencing, and the particular difficulties facing all health services in 2012. It is vital that all providers work creatively and co-operatively to ensure the maximum level of services is maintained for service users within the funding resources available. In this context, the HSE is in ongoing active discussions with St. John of God services to minimise the impact of the budget reductions on services and clients.

The Minister of State spoke about minimising the impact, but a huge impact is already being felt. We are trying to keep everybody at home for as long as possible but reductions in services such as this will very often push families into making decisions about having to seek residential care for elderly parents who need care. They would prefer to look after them at home but cannot do so without support.

The Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, more than anyone understands.

Absolutely. She does and I agree with the Minister of State on this. I know how difficult the situation is but we need to keep highlighting it.

She more than anyone else understands the importance of respite care and its necessity in the range of services being provided for people in this situation. I know this from my constituency. The crucial issue is how to maintain front-line services while ongoing cutbacks are being made. Many of these decisions should be left to local areas to determine. In so far as the Government is concerned every effort will be made to minimise the impact on local communities. I appreciate the difficulty faced with regard to the budget and the impact it has across a range of services, particularly on providers. This is why the view of the Minister of State, and the Minister, Deputy Reilly, is to examine how to ensure people work creatively with the budgets that exist. The reductions being made are significant but they are smaller than in other areas. The question must be posed as to how we reconfigure the service and examine the issue of pay again to ensure the front line remains in place and the services exist for those who need them. This must be the priority for us all.

Civil Service Role

I welcome the Minister of State. He is on the home run now. I question the role of the Civil Service and ask who is running the country. Is it the Civil Service or the Government? I was a civil servant and I am mindful the majority of them are good people and do a very good job. However, I am also of the opinion that certain civil servants think they are more powerful than the Minister and Government and they dictate the pace. Since I came to the Seanad it has infuriated me that civil servants can knock on the head things I think are achievable. I suggested to the Department of Education and Skills that a particular national school needed extra classrooms because of the increase in roll numbers. They had obtained some but needed more. Departmental officials continually told the Minister it was wrong and that the numbers were decreasing. Six months later, when it was too late, the officials admitted they were wrong and that they had given the wrong information to the Minister. They were then not in a position to provide funding for the extra classrooms required.

The Department of Social Protection officials come to committee meetings — every Member of the Dáil and the Seanad will probably say the same thing — and tell us how quickly they are dealing with new applications for carer's allowance and that appeals are being dealt with within the three and a half or four month timeframe but the reality is that it could be more than 12 months. We just accept this from the same civil servants.

I introduced a Bill on wind turbines in the House which successfully passed Second Stage but as soon as that happened officials from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government contacted me. They did not want the Bill to go through because they wanted business as usual. They wanted wind turbines to be sited wherever they wanted them to be to achieve certain goals, which they probably will achieve but at a major cost to the environment.

The worst example of all of civil servants or public servants in operation was after the closure of the accident and emergency department in Roscommon, which was another botch by HIQA getting involved with the Department of Health stating it was unsafe when it had never visited the hospital. However, setting this aside, after the closure a group of us got together to see how we could better the health service in Roscommon where there is a void. At the time I pointed out the need for an ambulance base in my town. I suggested to the county manager that we could use the fire station if it were to go ahead. I and others made proposals at a forum at which the HSE was present. My proposal was accepted and the HSE got involved. The Minister for Health wants this to happen as do the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, the chief ambulance officer for the entire western region, the acting chief fire officer in Roscommon, the station officer and the firemen. After three months of negotiations and wheeling and dealing between the HSE and the local authority, the HSE came up with a service level agreement which the chief fire officer accepted but one person in the local authority decided he did not want to go down this road and he has been able to put a stop to it. It does not make sense.

Colm McCarthy proposed to the Government that we share services and it is Government policy, yet a civil servant can decide something is too much trouble for him or her. We have a serious issue. This is all about accountability and who is accountable to whom. Are civil servants accountable to Ministers or are Ministers beholden to civil servants? This is the question. I accept we have many good civil servants but many people are employed in the public service and Civil Service who would frustrate one. They find ways to not achieve something instead of trying to find ways to achieve it. The project I outlined would cost approximately €15,000 a year if it went ahead as nothing extra is involved. The HSE is willing to pay the local authority €15,000 a year for utilities and there are no capital costs. It makes sense but people are frustrating the process. I would like to hear the comments of the Minister of State on this matter.

I thank the Senator for his very interesting remarks. The title of the motion was the need for the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform to clarify the role of civil servants and their interaction with Ministers and the Government. It is a big title. I have a very interesting script from the Department but I will not use it.

The issue we face is one of political accountability because ultimately we must have a system based on parliamentary democracy whereby people elected to jobs have the task of responding to both Houses on performance on these tasks. Where policy is enunciated by the Government one would have thought this policy is then implemented by those public servants whose responsibility is to put it into effect.

The Senator cited four examples, which were very frustrating for him I suspect, where progress or action he wanted to see was being frustrated by a number of individuals. I have not heard their side of the story or the rationale for their view so it is difficult for me to comment. The Civil Service is entirely professional and independent and it gives its advice to the Government in a way that takes into account all competing policy interests. I understand the Senator's frustration, and one could argue his speech was like the last chapter in the book at the end of a very long political career, but on the contrary he is a new Senator who I suspect may be in the other House at some point. It is very important that he take up these issues with the Minister of the day who has responsibility in these areas, whether agriculture, social protection or health, to see whether progress can be made. It should not be the case that civil servants stand in the way once a decision has been made and it is in the interests of the system.

The great advantage of the public sector we have is that it can weigh up problems. However, ultimately it is a political call as to what the outcome has to be. In other systems, when one comes into government one can bring all the administration in with one. Those in senior positions from the previous administration leave. That may well be a view that the Senator is espousing and thinks is relevant and there may be merit in it. There is a necessity to have some bridge between the public service and the political system in terms of making sure that what Ministers want to happen actually occurs. That is crucial.

From the script given to me by the Department which I will forward to the Senator for a fascinating read, we are looking at all these issues. We are clarifying the role of the public sector in terms of advice, freedom of information, and what it is and is not accountable for. One of the key parts of the programme for Government is that where civil servants believe that a policy position such as decentralisation was contrary to a range of other objectives, they could speak publically about it and have their views recorded. Perhaps that would be a more useful way of engaging in this debate.

I appreciate the Senator's frustration but untimately the answer is this is a political responsibility for that Minister of group of Ministers to make sure they believe in him and what he is attempting to do. That is the only way progress can be made.

I am glad the Minister of State pointed out that we are talking about the same Civil Service. I am not talking about the Civil Service at large but senior advisers in the Civil Service who have been giving the same advice to the last three Governments. I am not suggesting we get rid of all of them but there has to be some kind of accountability which does not apply at present.

The Minister, Deputy Hogan, was in the House earlier. In fairness, under local government reform he stated the executive needed to be held to account. This is not happening. I thank the Minister of State and thank him for not reading the script.

The Seanad adjourned at 6.05 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 18 July 2012.
Top
Share