Skip to main content
Normal View

Public Service Staff

Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 14 July 2011

Thursday, 14 July 2011

Questions (14)

Dara Calleary

Question:

12 Deputy Dara Calleary asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he remains committed to the target in the programme for Government to reduce the numbers in the public sector by 25,000 by 2015. [20296/11]

View answer

Oral answers (14 contributions)

The Government plans to bring about a reduction of between 18,000 and 21,000 in overall public service numbers by 2014, relative to the end of 2010 position, with a further 4,000 reduction in 2015, subject to there being no compulsory redundancies and to the protection of front-line services. As outlined in the programme for Government, this will involve a fundamental change to the way in which the Government and the public service operate, including the rationalisation of core processes across the public service, a reduction in the number of State bodies and the elimination of non-priority programmes and outsourcing of non-core functions, where appropriate. The measures necessary to give effect to these reductions are being developed by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, taking account of the existing projections for staff numbers over the coming years. The comprehensive spending review will also focus on reform and new ways of delivering public services and the opportunities and challenges arising under the Croke Park agreement. Following completion of the comprehensive spending review and analysis of current levels of public service staffing, including natural wastage, and progress with redeployment, the Government will decide on the necessity for targeted exit mechanisms and the timing of such initiatives.

Based on the documentation provided by the Department at the meeting of the sub-committee yesterday, the reduction in public service staff numbers this year will be 3,000 compared with 5,000 last year. Given that the target for reducing public service staff numbers for the years 2011 to 2014, inclusive, is 21,000, a further 18,000 staff or 6,000 per annum will have to leave the public service in 2012, 2013 and 2014. That is double the reduction envisaged for this year. Does the public service have the capacity to cope with reductions in staff on such a massive scale? We hear there is light at the end of the tunnel, but if the Government tells us the numbers of job losses in the public service will be double what they are this year in each of the years 2012, 2013 and 2014 and that a further 4,000 public sector jobs will be lost in 2014, people will crack at some stage. Does the Minister appreciate the gravity of the figures to which he has committed?

I may give some comfort to the Deputy on the figures. The target of 3,000 for this year is the old one. We have not yet put in place a revised target because I want to do some forensic analysis of the number of public service staff who will retire and so on. At the end of the first quarter this year there were slightly less than 304,000 employees in the public service. As the Deputy correctly noted, the published target in the documentation he has received was to reduce public service numbers to 301,000 by the end of the year. This figure will be significantly exceeded. I am working on a better target and will try to have one firmed up by the time I take questions again. I will give the House a better target as soon as I can. It is my judgment that public service numbers will have fallen below 300,000 by the end of the year.

We are examining how many staff will leave the public service voluntarily. As I indicated yesterday, the previous Government allowed those who will retire up to the end of February next to avail of the pension entitlements they would have enjoyed prior to the public service pay cuts. I decided to require three months' notice of retirement. Obviously, not everyone will retire in February and many will decide to leave at the end of the year. We should have an indication in September of the number who will take the final opportunity to avail of their pension entitlements as they stood prior to the pay cuts. I am confident the number will be significant and that the target of reducing public service numbers by 3,000 this year will be easily exceeded.

Deputy Boyd Barrett may ask a quick supplementary question. We have only a few minutes left.

I apologise because I must leave in a minute to go to a housing meeting, which relates to my question about——

Will you represent me at it?

I will mention you, a Cheann Comhairle. It is in The Graduate.

The meeting is about the fact that no social housing will be built directly and we are going to start leasing in Dún Laoghaire from private landlords.

I am not sure that is relevant to the question.

It does connect. I am not playing fast and loose. Is this how to get good value for public expenditure? As we are losing 13% of local authority staff as a result of the recruitment embargo and, therefore, no longer have people to do the direct build of social housing, social housing must be provided by the private sector. Is that not more costly in the end? We get nothing at the end of it.

We are paying money to NAMA or private landlords——

Please be fair to Deputy McDonald. She has tabled a question.

This is a genuine question about expenditure.

It is a genuine question that has nothing to do with my Department.

I would like to have a debate with the Deputy about that.

Not at the moment.

No, not at the moment, a Cheann Comhairle, in deference to yourself.

There has been significant downsizing in the local authority sector and there have been huge efficiencies. My own local authority published, in last week's local paper, The Wexford People , a two-page analysis of significant efficiencies it has brought about to give better services to people. It is not all about cutting or reducing the quality of service. Things can be done better when we look at them fundamentally.

I do not look at this from an ideological perspective. I do not think everything done by the public service is better than everything done by the private sector, or vice versa. There are things that are performed best by the public sector and things that are performed best by the private sector. We have to make a rational discernment about these things and not be clouded, one way or the other, by an ideological perspective.

Top
Share