Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 4 Jul 1985

Vol. 360 No. 3

Estimates, 1985. - Public Expenditure Committee — Review of Department of the Public Service: Motion.

Mr. Keating

I move:

That Dáil Éireann takes note of the Report of the Committee on Public Expenditure: Review of Department of the Public Service.

As this is the second time today that we have had an opportunity to explore the issues relative to the Department of the Public Service I do not intend to cover ground that we have already covered. I offer the House this report as the fruit of many months work by the committee of which I have the honour to be chairman. It contains 34 specific recommendations which I trust the Minister or his representative will consider and take note of and, I hope, implement in due course. Our approach to the work dealt with the need to ensure that the public service and the Civil Service would work in pursuit of clear objectives and targets, departmentally, sectorally and for each individual within that service. Secondly, we hoped for appropriate management systems to be put in place so as to be able to assess whether or not the public were getting value for money.

The difference between this morning's debate and this mini-debate is precisely that our concern this evening relates to questions relating to value for money. At present there are some 30,000 nonindustrial civil servants with a total pay bill of £330 million. In addition, the DPS have functions in relation to the entire public sector numbering 300,000 people with a total pay bill of something of the order of £2,464 million, a gigantic sum. The questions my committee addressed were whether or not those figures were justified, whether or not the State got value for money and whether or not the Department of the Public Service, as the motivator and the central dynamic in pursuit of better value for money, were doing the best job possible. In our lengthy and often turgid but at all times interesting discussions with officials from the Department of the Public Service, many of us felt that it was very difficult for any of our guests at those hearings to state absolutely that the State was getting the best value for money, quite often because systems were not in place in order to be able to give such answers.

It is obvious that in the last two to three years, perhaps because of the appointment of a Minister with exclusive responsibility for the public service, there is a new emphasis and focus on getting the public service into a situation where they act as the dynamic which they can and must become. I understand that the Minister will not be here this evening but I gather he will be represented by one of his Cabinet colleagues. Our recommendations are designed to assist in achieving that dynamic and we specifically homed in on a number of areas to which I will refer. As far as we were concerned the essential thing was to embark on an examination of a Department where it is very difficult to evaluate precisely how much progress is being made or what effect they are having on other Departments. When the Department of the Public Service was created 13 years ago out of a limb of the Department of Finance they were designed to become a dynamic in bringing on stream the full potential of the public service. Many feel that that has not happened. Obviously the Government felt the same when they appointed a Minister with exclusive responsibility in that area. Since then significant progress has been made.

Our report points to precise and specific areas where further progress can be achieved. We should remember that we in this House represent the public who are not at all convinced that the public service are what their name suggests, a service for the public. It can often happen that instead of being a public service the public are often shunned and avoided by some of the Government Departments with which they have to deal. We spend in the order of £2,500 million annually on the pay bill of the public service for 300,000 people employed there. When one looks at any assessment of any individual agency or State organisation it is evident that we could get a percentage improvement. My colleagues on the committee agree.

Any of the inquiries or investigations carried out by us over the last couple of years would indicate that there is substantial room for improvement not just in systems that should be in place for getting value for money but in the area of setting down clear targets and pursuing those targets and getting rid of superfluous programmes and superfluous personnel. I am saying "getting rid of" where appropriate, rather than deployment. As the Department of the Public Service are the Government agency charged with responsibility, to a greater or lesser extent, for those areas the committee are convinced that the performance and effectiveness of the Department is the key to success or otherwise of the management and performance in other areas of the public service. When members of the public are reflecting on this report I would ask them to consider, in conjunction with it, the detailed minutes of evidence which have been published and which gave a verbatim account of our discussions with the Department of the Public Service which were subsequent to a very comprehensive set of questions which were forwarded to the DPS and answered by them, and which were dealt with in detail over those meetings.

These meetings were followed up by consultants acting on our behalf who explored every possible aspect of those replies. The committee's recommendations all of which are set out in the report are important but I will just refer to a number of them. Essentially, some of the key recommendations include the following: my committee are convinced that significant productivity improvements can be achieved in the public service. That is demonstrably evident from the work we have done. My committee feel that the Minister for the Public Service should give priority to projects which have high prospective benefits, and studies and assessments should be carried out of any programme or project with which the DPS are involved to ensure that those which have high prospective benefits and clear tangible results in terms of effectiveness and efficiency should get priority.

The level of investment in training for senior personnel throughout the Civil Service should be increased substantially and we accept that that means more money, but we see that as a short term investment for a medium to long term yield. Any investment in training will pay major dividends and if we are engaged in the business of trying to bring to full potential a whole public sector with the kind of logistical implications I have referred to, an increased investment in training will pay dividends.

The capability of the advisory units of the Department of the Public Service should be improved. There should be a review of the overall organisation of the DPS management services unit, the operations research unit, the personnel assigned to the structural reform programme and the advisory services of the Central Data Processing Service. In a report the Public Service Advisory Council, a body set up to assist and advise the Minister in that respect, refer to the need to have a careful assessment of such reorganisations and realignments within the DPS, and they point out that sometimes reorganisation and realignment of those systems can simply present an impression of activity without any improvement in efficiency or effectiveness. Their exact words in their 1984 report are that the rearrangement of functions has the cosmetic effect of giving the impression that something is being done but does not necessarily result in more efficient and effective administration. Therefore, a serious review of overall organisation is what my committee are talking about.

We suggested a detailed external review of the operations section of the DPS. Further, the DPS should be obliged urgently to establish the real cost of all programmes for which they are responsible including such elements as premises and pension costs. It is lamentable and remarkable and not all that forgivable that it is not possible for the DPS on their own admission at this time — the Department who are concerned and charged with responsibility for ensuring value for money in other areas of the public service — to establish to their satisfaction or the satisfaction of my committee, and presumably to the satisfaction of this House and the people who are paying the bill for all of it, the real cost of programmes which they have in place at present, including the cost of premises, pensions and all other related costs. I will not dwell on it except to say that that is a fair indicator of the state of events.

We suggest that charges should be made in all cases for services provided by the DPS and that Government Departments should pay out of their own budgets for all that they utilise or consume in the course of their work, even if this means that the budget of Departments be adjusted upwards in order to cope with a corresponding decrease in the DPS budget or the budget of the OPW or whatever appropriate Department may be involved. We recommend further that Government Departments should seek competitive quotations for such services from external organisations. In short, the old days of a Department ringing up a central sister Department and saying, "We should like 20,000 more square feet of office space furnished in this way and designed this way, the following telephone installation and the following staff resources", and they getting that in due course are over. That is a nonsense because no cost consciousness element is built into it. A Department should be given a budget and allowed to spend it, within reasonable safeguards, in whatever way they wish; and if they wish to acquire or consume further items of expenditure let them do so but pay for it themselves.

There is nothing more salutary and chastening for people engaged in expenditure then being obliged to spend their own money, although even in this case that is to some extent a misnomer. How can we expect Government Departments to be cost-conscious, to be effective in this area, to be concerned about public expenditure, when not one of them could understand the price of any of the consumables which they devour daily in the course of their work? That change alone, in my view and that of my committee, of all the recommendations, would if implemented, effect a very substantial saving of public money without any deterioration or drawback in the quality of public service. We are convinced that if the Minister listens to that suggestion, puts it in place and says, "from tomorrow or next year onwards you have your budget, you can spend it as you wish and if you want further items of expenditure, so be it, but out of your budget it comes" that would be enormously helpful and advantageous.

We draw attention in some detail to the effect which the currently unfunded pension liability will have on public expenditure. It should be quantified and appropriate action should be identified, and we suggest that the Minister undertake an immediate study of the full liability in which the State is engaging and contracting for day after day every time it employs a public servant. We are suggesting, obliquely enough in view of the circumstances which are known to many of us, that there is massive under-funding and that unless in due course proper arrangements are put in place for ensuring that there are adequate funds to meet public service pensions, then in a short number of years there will be a major problem relating to the possible inability of the State to pay for pensions which it has obliged itself to pay. There are various estimates about the amount of funds necessary to be put aside for that purpose, but the present fund is inadequate. I am aware of semi-State organisations who are walking the tightrope in this respect and who have not made adequate provision and if tomorrow they were to be faced with collapse or being liquidated or wound up they would face major problems. There would simply not be enough money to pay for legal obligations which the State had entered into. To put it charitably, we have had a whiff of that already in the Irish Shipping case. We draw serious attention to that problem. We do not want it ignored that we will come back to it in due course if it is ignored.

The Minister for the Public Service should reduce dramatically, substantially and immediately the number of grades in the public service which we gather to be of the order of 1,000 — an incredible, multi-tiered, multi-faceted complex of bureaucracy within which bureaucratic, stangulated maze I do not know how people can work or operate or expect to be rewarded for effort. It would not happen in any other country. There are companies which have a bigger GNP than this whole country has and they would not tolerate that state of affairs.

Mr. B. Ahern

They are not rewarded for effort.

Mr. Keating

They are not rewarded for effort, but even the environment which 1,000 grades implies obviously is conducive to nothing but the opposite, and that is a problem. I know that it is not easy to effect these changes. I suppose there would have to be protracted discussions with trade unions and so on, but we believe that with the way this country is proceeding dramatic action may be necessary and certainly that the number of grades should be reduced substantially.

The DPS should tighten up procedures to identify surplus staff which we believe exists, so as to facilitate what we call in our report, being as constructive, helpful and charitable as we can, their early redeployment. I have remarked today that it is somewhat remarkable that if we include the local authorities in the public sector, we were able to abolish the domestic rate and car tax and not one person lost his or her job, indicating a degree of benevolence by the State which I am not sure the country can afford any longer. In essence we are saying that the procedures for identifying surplus staff should be tightened up so that we can at least redeploy them if there is an opportunity for them to be redeployed usefully.

We suggest that a study be undertaken to establish whether cost savings or improvement in effectiveness might result in a reallocation of some of the functions at present performed by the DPS and a number of related Departments. It is time that Government reviewed the departmental structures which they have at present in place. Perhaps some functions of the DPS could be handled better by other Departments, although we do not say that categorically because we have not undertaken that study. For that matter perhaps there are aspects of services provided by other Departments which could be handled better by the DPS. There seems to be no overall review in that respect.

We believe that the total cost of programmes and the total value of output should be reconciled to the overall Vote expenditure for the DPS.

In general the committee concluded that within the Department of the Public Service the fundamental task of establishing objectives and assigning responsibilities is well advanced and being advanced. Credit should be given to people engaged in that task now. Unquestionably much of that has happened relatively recently. We believe, however, that a substantial amount of work remains to be done particularly in relation to day to day management, deployment of resources and achievement of objectives.

In many areas the achievement of these objectives is dependent on external factors, most notably good working relationships with other Departments. The remit of the Department of the Public Service does not have a mandatory role in terms of the advice offered to other Departments and this might be reviewed. It is pointless to have a Department which is expected to be the repository of standards of excellence in regard to achieving value for money when the advice they offer can be blithely ignored by other Departments. That should not be the case.

The report makes clear the committee's view in that respect. The committee are firmly of the view that advisory services should not exist unless it is clear that adequate levels of benefit arise. We are concerned that the current level of resources being devoted by the Department of the Public Service to their objectives may not be justifiable due to known difficulties in achieving progress in certain areas and weakness in the internal management systems of the Department of the Public Service which make it difficult to demonstrate value for money in the area. The taxpayer and this House are entitled to know as a certainty that before money is committed in pursuit of public policy the public are getting value for money. That cannot be stated unless there is a system in place to show it is the case. Regardless of how difficult it is, economies, other public sectors and other systems manage to have those systems in place. We should not allow the prevailing situation to operate.

The committee also noted that opportunities for staff reductions may exist in every Department but there is no systematic procedure to remove excess staff. This obviously suggests weaknesses in manpower planning and control procedures. My committee believe that implementing the recommendations of this report will enable management in the Department of the Public Service to identify opportunities for improving the effectiveness of their services. The DPS should then be able to demonstrate that they have made proper arrangements to achieve value for money in those areas for which they are responsible and that the benefits achieved are sufficient to justify the resources made available.

The committee, as part of their deliberations on the review of this Department, studied the report of the Public Service Advisory Council chaired by Dr. Liam St. John Devlin and given the task of monitoring reform in the public service. We noted with concern that members commented in the 1984 report as follows:

It seems as if little notice was taken up to this of their observations and recommendations.

The council identified the Committee on Public Expenditure as having great potential for supporting reform in the public service and my committee would certainly see themselves as having a role in that regard. We acknowledge the helpful comment of the council.

The council's latest report is, unfortunately, an incident of lack of progress in reorganisation and reform in the public service since the publication of the Devlin Report in 1969. The question has to be asked: why has there been such little progress in public service reform? One of the answers is that it is not perceived as a very high political priority by either the public or the politicians, but leadership and statesmanship are about ensuring that national needs are delivered, regardless of whether they are at all times perceived ones. It is because of a lack of commitment from the centre or are managements in Departments not convinced of the benefits to be gained from the recommendations for change? Do such managements in some cases resist change when it may in some way threaten the republic or the empire over which they have domain? Whatever the cause, the DPS must be seen to be the primary source and catalyst for a more efficient and effective public service. I know that I am at one with the Minister in that respect.

When we produce our next annual progress report in September-October we will specifically refer to the action taken on all observations and recommendations of any of our reports to date, including this one, and we also intend to look at the degree of implementation of the recommendations contained in the reports of the Public Service Advisory Council. We would be happy to be able to report to the Dáil in due course that progress was made.

The report which we present to the Dáil for consideration is basically concerned with finding out whether the DPS, which has grown considerably since its establishment and continues to grow inordinately — it is numerically larger than other Departments — has developed the expertise to meet modern challenges and the major objectives set down for the Department over the years. We concentrated on the following main areas of activity: productivity improvement, DPS advisory service, overall project management, achievement of benefits, available skills and expertise within the DPS, co-ordinating computing expenditure, staff organisation, development and utilisation; Central Data Processing Service, charging for services, manpower planning and control, relationships with other Departments and internal resources management by the DPS. There are 34 recommendations set out on pages 45 to 52 of the report. The verbatim minutes have been published separately but should be read in conjunction with the report.

I thank all those who helped to make this report possible, including staff within the DPS and our consultant, Mr. David Algeo from Craig Gardner, and the staff of the committee who have at all times been excellent in the help they have given. I hope that the report will be interpreted as a constructive attempt at assisting the Government. I stress the all-party nature of that report and the all-party support for the recommendations. The purpose is to ensure that Government have less opportunity than they might normally have to be tempted to shelve this report or any of the all-party reports. I am not suggesting that they would wish to do that but sometimes the pressure of other priorities might cause it to happen. I expect and hope that it will not happen on this occasion.

We take the view that we have a very fine public service who have given great service to the State over the years. We are worried lest any aspects of this report might in any way damage morale or cause difficulty in the public sector. Morale is often unfairly dented. That is not our intention or desire. Our desire is to help to nudge towards progress in creating an environment in which every individual in the public sector, from the clerical assistant to the secretary of a Department, sees himself or herself as having an opportunity to contribute to the national wellbeing in an environment conducive to giving of their best and in which they will be rewarded accordingly. Our 34 recommendations are significant contributions in that respect. I commend them to the House and I thank my committee for their help in producing the report. I hope the Minister will be kind enough to accept the report in the spirit in which it is offered.

Minister for Labour (Mr. Kavanagh)

The Minister for the Public Service, Deputy Boland, unfortunately cannot be here to reply and has asked me to reply on his behalf. I do so with some pleasure because I return to a Department with which I had some association some years ago.

The Minister for the Public Service welcomes the report of the Public Expenditure Committee which he finds to be supportive of the task assigned to him as Minister for the Public Service, which is, in short, to ensure an effective and efficient public service. He is having the recommendations of the committee examined and evaluated in the context of the forthcoming White Paper on the Public Service which is now before the Government.

Many of the report's findings mirror the Minister's thinking and, indeed, that of the Government. Others represent the view from a slightly different angle and provide an additional insight into the problems of the public service today. A few are, perhaps, a bit wide of the mark but, on the whole, the document is a worthwhile contribution to the process of administrative development.

Any shortcomings which the Minister has found in the report are, perhaps, a result of the circumstances of its production. It was the result of an examination carried out between April and September 1984, a period during which the Department of the Public Service was itself, at the Minister's instigation, undergoing a major self-evaluation and overhaul and was just settling into a new distribution of functions, as well as developing a new system of accountable management.

Furthermore, since that time there has been a complete reorganisation of the resources devoted to computerisation and information management involving the creation of new structures within the Department and the devolution of some functions to other Departments.

In addition, this was the first major survey of a Department by the Public Expenditure Committee and, since the functions of the Department of the Public Service affect every other Department of State, the committee may wish to modify their observations in future years when they have examined the operations of these Departments.

Finally, the committee mentions that the objective of the Department of the Public Service in relation to pay policy was excluded from its scope. As industrial relations are a major element in the brief of the Minister for the Public Service, they influence almost everything done by his Department. In that context any report which fails to examine the vitally important remuneration and conditions division of the DPS cannot claim to be anywhere near being comprehensive. The Minister would like to take this opportunity to record his personal appreciation of the dedicated and often unacknowledged work of the staff in this division.

Before I come to the main thrust of the report, I would like to say a few words about the question of the skills available in the Department of the Public Service; I fear that the report may do less than justice in this area.

For example, the report states that "in the Management Services Unit, there is not one cost accountant, one economist or one computer systems expert". It is true that there is no cost accountant in that unit but the deficiency in commercial accounting skills in the Civil Service is one which will be attended to under the provisions of the White Paper.

There was, however, an economist in the unit and the economic skills there have been increased by the addition of an officer with a higher degree in economics. As regards computer systems experts, there were, and are in the unit, two former systems analysts, one of whom holds a degree in computer science. In addition to this the resources of the specialised computer area of the Department are fully available to the management services unit.

A substantial list of skills in this area could be furnished, such as administrative science and psychology. In the associated operations research unit, there are four officers with mathematical qualifications, two at higher and specialised levels. Because of the policy of mobility in the interests of both spreading skills throughout the public service and of career development, it is inevitable that people with particular skills will move in and out of various units in the Civil Service. There is some conflict as suggested in paragraph 48 of the report between providing adequate experience and specialisation and providing for mobility. It is a matter of balance and, in spite of short term problems, the Minister for the Public Service is convinced that the best interests of the service lie in a system of mobility which will ensure that skills, talent and merit flow to where they can best serve the public.

The recommendations in this report deal with three major themes and a number of lesser though still important matters. The first theme is that of productivity. The Minister is glad to note the emphasis on the responsibility of individual managers in Departments for the achievement of increases in productivity. His Department have constantly pushed for such improvements by surveys, by staff numbers control and by the improvement of methods and the use of technology.

In the past few years the embargo has forced Departments to achieve an improvement of some 9 per cent in productivity and probably much more when account is taken of new services and improvements in existing ones; further improvements are promised in the national plan and will be delivered. The Minister is not sure if the rules of thumb implying the possibilities of enormous increases in productivity put forward in paragraph 25 of the report can be justified without examining individual Departments. He is convinced, however, that increases productivity is possible and is seeking it in two main ways.

First, through rigid control of numbers and management surveys, we are ensuring that there is a steady improvement in productivity. The much criticised embargo is the means by which this productivity has been translated into concrete terms. We must now rationalise its effects between the deserving and the less deserving areas.

Second, there is the opportunity for major increases in productivity arising from the new technology. A major reorganisation of the computer services in the Department of the Public Service has already taken place to meet the challenge. Responsibility for computer systems has been assigned to the larger users and to a new central computing service. In addition, and perhaps of major importance, a central information management advisory service has been set up to guide the developments in technology which will revolutionise the administrative systems we know today.

The Department are exploring, as practical possibilities in the near future, such concepts as an electronic network-linked public administrative system, office automation and the elimination of time wasting and inefficient practices and procedures. The possibilities are, quite frankly, glittering but we must change and train people for those possibilities. This is being done through expanded training programmes in the Civil Service training centre but it also requires the active co-operation of the staff concerned.

While some reduction in the inflated numbers in the public service has been necessary for budgetary reasons, in general, the fruits of the new technology will be used less to reduce numbers than to improve the quality and the range of services available to the public.

The second of the main themes running through the report is that of management. The report quotes from a speech which the Minister for the Public Service made in October 1983 in which he described the principles of a new system of management then being developed in his Department. It goes on to make the comment that, while the fundamental tasks of establishing objectives and assigning responsibilities are well advanced, a lot of work remains to be done.

This comment was based on the committee's knowledge of the development of the system almost a year ago. The substantial progress made since then in the procedures for managing the Department is not, therefore, reported.

In the past year, the systems designed to ensure value for money in the Department's programmes have been greatly streamlined and developed. There is a greatly increased emphasis on programme management; much clearer statements of the expected outputs and costs of each programme have been set out with the minimum of paperwork. Every programme is scrutinised, as part of a continuing process of management review, and its performance compared with the detailed plans as regards both results and budgets.

This process had led to the discontinuance or amalgamation of programmes and the reallocation of staff resources to better effect. The report points to the danger that the scale of programmes operated by the Department could be determined by the size of the available budget rather than by the value of the output. The system of management now in use in the Department provides a safeguard against this danger. It has also been an essential management aid in enabling the Department of the Public Service to achieve their objectives despite the restrictions on staffing which apply to the whole Civil Service.

The Minister would like to say that he regards systems such as this as being necessary in all Departments. As indicated in Building on Reality, it is the Government's intention that management in all Departments will be geared more systematically than before to achieving results and reducing costs. He believes that, while this will involve some extra effort and a strict discipline for Civil Service managers, it will also give them the incentive to achieve the most they can with the maximum economy of resources.

The third major issue is that of superannuation and pensions. Recommendation (22) from the committee is to the effect that an exercise should be undertaken to determine the effect which the present unfunded pension liability for public servants will have on public expenditure and to identify appropriate action. It is clear from the body of the report that the committee are anxious that the accuracy of the figures used for estimating the cost of superannuation should be established.

The Minister for the Public Service would not take issue with the general thrust of Recommendation (22). He shares the committee's concern about the long term Exchequer costs of public service pensions. He accepts that an up-to-date consting exercise on the lines suggested by the committee would be of assistance to his Department and to the Department of Finance, which of course are also involved in this area. He is arranging that such an exercise will go ahead.

While he does not think it would be appropriate to enter into a detailed discussion of public service superannuation terms on this occasion, there are two points the Minister would like to make. First, it will, he hopes, be appreciated that the problem of long term superannuation costs in respect of the public service is not one which lends itself to any single, simple solution.

Secondly, there are differences in the factors applicable to public service pension schemes and private sector schemes which may, at the end of the day, make it preferable to adhere to the pay-as-you-go formula in the public service rather than to adopt a funding procedure. However, the first step is to carry out the costing exercise recommended by the committee and the Minister is, as I have said, having that put in hand.

A number of other matters are raised in the report and, while all will be considered, the Minister would like to refer briefly to some of the more important. He fully agrees that the resources for training for higher management and training in programme management generally should be increased. Furthermore, there will be an increasing need to train people at all levels in the use of the new technology.

All this will require increased resources. It is an observed fact internationally that, in difficult times, expenditure on items like training has been among the first to be cut. This, of course, is a false economy and he is determined that training to meet the challenges of the future will remain a priority in the public service.

Job exchanges, rationalisation of grading and manpower planning are other matters where the report recommends intensified or extended efforts. The recommendations in these areas will all be favourably considered; in fact, the report is pushing an open door as our efforts are already being steered in the same direction.

A last item that the Minister would like to mention is the recommendation on charging for services provided by the Department of the Public Service. He has always thought that it would be a good idea if interdepartmental services were charged for. However, he understands that the whole question of what are known as allied services in the annual Estimates is governed by strict accounting procedures and change would require the consent of the Committee of Public Accounts. It might be worthwhile for the two committees to get together to see what changes are desirable in public accounting practices which may now be outmoded.

The Minister commends the report to the House therefore as a valuable input to the process of public service renewal. There is much to be done and the ideas in this report will contribute to the development of an improved public service. Yet a considerable amount has been done already. The runway increase in numbers has been halted and reversed; the principle of merit in advancement has been established and we are gearing up to meet the challenges of technology. We can and will build on these foundations and ensure that we have an effective and efficient public service to serve the people of this country into the next century.

I should like to reply to a comment that was made since the notes were prepared. The DPS have not continued to grow inordinately. Since July 1981 the numbers have fallen from 486 to 360. That takes account of the transfer of 68 of the computer staff from the Department. The impression was given that numbers had increased whereas there has been a considerable decrease.

Mr. B. Ahern

I should like to support the recommendations and congratulate the chairman and members on the amount of work they put into it. I have read the minutes of the meetings which were issued with a great deal of interest. They gave a great insight into the Department of the Public Service and the Civil Service generally. This morning when debating the Estimate for the Department we touched on most of the points referred to in the report. The committee set out to look at the public service, and the Civil Service elements of it, and try to identify areas where savings could be made and the service made more effective. Whether the committee succeeded is another matter.

Mr. Kevin Murphy, Secretary of the Department, when he was interviewed by the committee last summer gave as one of the Department's objectives, bringing about "fundamental change", by "standing back and looking at the public service in a much more objective way". I agree with a lot of the comments in the report but they are similar to the phrases put forward in reports issued by consultants and management teams. The cliches, some of which may be relevant, are contained in most reports about productivity, management, technology, modernisation and training. If one looks objectively at the public service, as the Secretary and his officials try to do, one will see a huge bureaucracy in a small country. The services built up over 60 years rarely changed. They may have been amended. During those years different buildings have been procured and new Departments formed. There have been internal wranglings and halfhearted attempts to reform the public service. Some efforts were made, such as in the Devlin Report, but they only got half way before the Department of Finance got involved in rows with other Departments.

As the Secretary says, some section of the Civil Service should be allowed bring about fundamental change by standing back and looking at themselves. That would be good. I do not believe anybody ever looks at such things objectively. The speech read by the Minister, Deputy Kavanagh, is similar to ones read ten years ago when Members spoke about reform in the public service. With a few changes, it will be used again in ten years time. At that stage there will be a little more about new technology but that is all.

I do not know anything about the inner workings of the Department other than what I read but I do not see what is wrong in giving a management section permission to call in outside consultants. Deputy Kelly gave us a homily today on the cost of consultants and seemed to imply that the employment of them was a useless exercise. If consultants help to improve the public service all the better. Reading the report of the committee one can conclude that the Department are not being given sufficient staff. There has been a decline in staff numbers in that Department. A lot of the matters dealt with by the Department such as pay, superannuation and so on are not what the Devlin Report envisaged for it. That report suggested that the DPS should help other Departments introduce good management systems and encourage them to be motivators and not procrastinators. It suggested that the DPS should establish planning and finance units in the various Departments and try to organise Departments in such a way that officials would be answerable for the budgets allocated to them. The Devlin Report was issued in 1969 but nothing has happened since. In fact, we have gone back. There is a lot of talk about accountability and responsibility but that does not occur.

When I was sitting at the Cabinet table as Government Chief Whip, Minister of State at the Departments of the Taoiseach and Defence and when I was spokesman on Youth and Opposition Chief Whip, I met more public servants than most. I got files on everything, lists from COs, EOs, AOs, HEOs, Assistant Secretaries, Secretaries and Ministers. I got copies of various agreements typed on expensive paper. It made me wonder how much we have achieved over the years. I do not think we have achieved very much. When times are bad in industry and agriculture, people suggest that the public service is the rope around the country's neck. It is only that because all other sections are failing.

The public service would be working well if industry was doing all right and if we did not have such high borrowing. It would be wrong to say that because of mistakes made by the Department of the Public Service agricultural output has decreased, unemployment has increased, the rate of inflation is high, our external and internal borrowings have reached an all time high, and so on. That argument has been put forward too often for my liking. It is true that our public servants have pension security nobody else has, but it is wrong to say they are inefficient, because generally they work extremely hard using out-dated equipment and are as efficient as staff numbers allow.

I accept that some Departments are over-staffed and I support redeployment in the public service. If a person is recruited to the Civil Service as a clerical officer or executive officer, he should be allocated to a Department by the Civil Service Commission. He has no right to say which Department he stays in.

I do not believe the Civil Service and the public service are as bad as they are made out to be, but that is not to say that they cannot be greatly improved by up-to-date technology and machinery. If one wants to lash out at the public service, one could attack every section. We have seen that private enterprise have made a hash of thing in recent years. Certain individuals in Irish Shipping were given power to enter the commercial world, and look what they did. Many semi-State companies are losing billions of pounds. Last night I spoke in this House about Irish Steel who have been losing money because of circumstances outside their control — the price of scrap, world market prices and so on. I do not see why we have to have reports and attacks on our public service.

This morning I dealt with technology, redeployment and so on, but the thrust of some of things said in this report tend to be unfair. It is sad that the Minister boasts of cuts in the public service because of the embargo. The effect of this embargo is that millions of pounds are outstanding. People are playing ducks and drakes with the tax system because the people in the tax offices are overworked and overburdened. People refuse to fill up forms. Under the old system a tax form would have to be filled in by the sixth of the month, and the money would have to be sent to Revenue, but all those things are gone. Who gains from that? The so-called capitalists and the semi-criminal element who are involved in the black economy. The Minister says they will save a few hundred jobs and the numbers employed in the public service will be reduced by 8 per cent, but if we were to take into account the cost-effectiveness of the Civil Service we would ask ourselves if it would not be more profitable if that 8 per cent were working in the right Departments helping to collect the hundreds of millions of pounds outstanding through VAT, PAYE, PRSI and other taxes. That would be a greater help for our balance of payments than the money we are saving by reducing the numbers employed in the public service. Most of these people are in the lower grades — those who open doors and clean the lavatories in the Departments, not the people on high salaries. This is a bit of a con game. It is not an embargo we want, but a proper redeployment in the Civil Service. I cannot understand why the trade union representatives cannot see that, why they do not try to do away with the embargo and have their workers redeployed.

There is no easy solution to the pensions problem but it should be costed. This information will be needed for future financial projections. This is a massive cost and, as the Minister said this morning, the year 2015 will bear the brunt of it. I believe if you want to get more out of your public servants and civil servants, productivity, management and technology will help, but bashing them will not. Down the years these people have given an excellent service to the State and we should try to think of more effective ways to encourage people who work hard. Perhaps we could give an extra day's holiday to those who do not con the system.

Public servants are not paid very well. People in senior posts might be earning £25,000 or £30,000 but a good insurance salesman selling policies around the city could earn that amount. Yet we are asking senior civil servants to serve a busy Minister, to monitor and control large staffs, to be responsible for millions of pounds and to work for the same salary as a tradesman — it often happens that a tradesman is better paid than an administrator. Higher civil servants have been asked to carry the can and they have done it very successfully. They deserve a lot of praise. I have criticised them at times but they should be seen to want change; perhaps they do, but I have not received the reports from the various associations and I do not know who is holding up the publication of the White Paper. I will not go into that again this evening but the sooner we get this White Paper the better.

The people who represent Civil Service staff should come forward and say they are prepared to accept the following — they want change and they want to get away from the "us and them" attitude. I say to these representatives, they as much as the Minister, keep alive the "us and them" attitude.

Some time ago I put down a question asking how the embargo affected every grade. The poor official asked to prepare the information rang me and told me he would be working all Saturday and Sunday through the night preparing the reply and he asked if it would do in a few weeks. I withdrew the question to give him time to get this information and I am sure he worked every night, including Saturday and Sunday, to get it because, as Deputy Keating said, there are about 1,000 grades involved. We have a population of three million and 1,000 grades in the public service, all kinds of nonsensical and silly grades. Why not just have one name and keep them all happy because as far as I can see that is all it is about.

There are lists on page after page of people involved in agriculture and industry with peculiar titles which they, perhaps, do not even understand themselves. That is total nonsense. Anyone who tries to stand over such a system should not be allowed to work in the public service, or any other job for that matter. There are certain recommendations in this report which the Minister should implement. The degree of technology available here in small companies should be readily available in the public service.

One still hears of typing pools in 1985, but word processors would probably do away with the lot of them. One sees files all over the place, with ten people having to countersign the paperwork and all that could be eliminated. The only way to combat this is to take a section in the public service, with consultants and whatever other assistance is necessary, and send them off to some hotel in Connemara for the summer or the next 12 months and let them ask themselves what they really want to do with our public service. Let them streamline it, cut lines through it, issue a report on how they see progress in the public service in terms of value for money, effectiveness, efficiency and improving their own image.

Here we have a Minister talking about organisation and productivity but who today criticises the report, effectively, for leaving out the most important heading which he includes, that of pay levels. However, pay levels are a different matter. They are determined in the Department of Finance and, if people think otherwise, they are fooling themselves. The Minister for Finance determines the money available for any Department. There may be a section in the Department of the Public Service which would be dealing with data, but this would be true also of, say, the Department of Agriculture. This is just monitoring of reports and that is the function of the Department of Finance in a small country like ours.

I have said before when you are honoured to sit at a Cabinet table you see the differences in Departments. I shall not name any Ministers, but there is one who effectively has almost nothing to do. He is rarely brought into this House to answer questions. There is never a Special Notice Question down to him and if anyone bothers to put down a question to him, when he reads the answer nobody listens. On the other hand, the Minister for Finance comes in with about 15 files, with briefs of about 100 pages. He was in to brief his colleagues about major decisions which will put hundreds of millions of taxpayers' money on the line over the next few years.

There should be a once and for all review of all our services and all our Departments. Some were set up years ago and could be sub-Departments of a major Department. They do not require a full ministry. There are other Departments which badly need full ministries, or two or three Ministers. Finance and Industry are Departments where that is imperative. There are 15 Ministers, five working themselves and their public servants into the ground and the other ten under-worked and under-utilised. If they are busy, it is not doing important work that Ministers should be doing. That is a reform that I would make before any of the other recommendations in this report.

I welcome the report, but one must look at the public service in a much more objective way. I do not believe that that has been done in this report, or that it will be done. If the Minister for the Public Service was really interested in reform, he should have brought forward a White Paper. He should set up a small unit, give them the expertise and resources and let them carry out reform. As Opposition spokesman. I would support them in that. In the meantime, people are saying that they go along with reform, but do not intend doing so. Ministers are promising efficiency and effectiveness, but not doing anything about it. People in this House are talking about it, but have not got the desire to carry it through.

As chairman, Deputy Keating has put a great deal of work into this Committee on Public Expenditure and has tried to do an extremely difficult job since many people are not interested. As he said, they are interested only in services which give them something, and after that they just want to criticise. Public service reform is important. I do not believe that we are really facing up to it and, until we do, I remain a sceptical cynic, sitting on the sidelines.

Mr. J. Doyle

As a member of the Committee on Public Expenditure, I was involved in the fairly exhaustive review of the Department of the Public Service and I am glad to have this opportunity to contribute to the debate on this very important subject.

One of the first things I would like to say is that I have been generally impressed by the calibre and performance of all the officials from Government Departments and State-sponsored bodies who have appeared before the committee since we began out review work in 1983. It must not be forgotton that all of the staff in the public service reached their present positions through highly competitive examinations and interviews. The fact is that public sector jobs have become highly desirable and sought after and the Civil Service Commission and the other agencies have succeeded in obtaining people of top quality at all levels of the service. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the dedication of all the civil servants who are implementing Government policy and also to the employees of the State-sponsored bodies who are equally performing valuable work on behalf of the State.

I hope I have made it clear that the committee were not in the business of deliberately seeking to criticise the Department of the Public Service during the course of this review. We are, of course, obliged within our terms of reference to review the justification for and effectiveness of on-going expenditure of Government Departments and the noncommercial State-sponsored bodies and to recommend cost-effective alternatives and eliminate wasteful or obsolete programmes.

As we stated in our report, the Department of the Public Service were set up in 1973 as a separate Department from the Department of Finance and specifically charged with reorganising the public service through increasing efficiency and effectiveness and improving standards. The committee set out to establish to what extent any or all of those aims were achieved.

The secretary of the Department, Mr. Kevin Murphy, and his senior colleagues were very helpful to the committee in responding to our questions, some of which I am sure were fairly searching and were perhaps being asked for the first time in a structured way. The secretary answered all our questions in a forthright and honest manner and defended the role of his Department in an able and constructive way. Having said that, the committee found that some of the five main objectives of the DPS which are outlined at paragraph 20 of the report have not been achieved. We found that despite the existence of the Devlin Report since 1969 and the setting up of the DPS 11 years ago, little or no progress has been made in certain key areas. We would have to say that our review revealed weaknesses in the reallocation of functions between Departments and the setting up of better information and management systems.

The committee in this report are essentially asking the question: why has progress in public service reform been so poor? On the one hand, we have highly educated and well-paid staff who are recruited to carry out specific tasks. On the other hand, there seems to be a lack of direction and perhaps commitment to change, along with a degree of poor motivation or morale in many areas of the service. Again, one must ask the question: why is this so? The committee identified the fact that there are major structural manpower problems within the Civil Service, including minimal promotion prospects and poor levels of training and advisory services. These need to be radically improved. Our report sets out clearly how those problems might be analysed and overcome.

The Department of the Public Service have the potential and the means of greatly improving their own performance and this should have far-reaching consequences for the entire public service. No doubt the Minister in his forthcoming White Paper on Public Service Reform will spell out the steps to be taken in achieving the major goals implicit in this area. The committee would be concerned to ensure that changes are implemented through an orderly but speedy process. No one could justify waiting for years to see these reforms achieved.

We can sympathise with the Public Service Advisory Council who expressed disappointment at the very poor response to their observations in their annual reports to the Minister for the Public Service. We on the committee will be very disappointed if the very positive recommendations in our report are not taken seriously and implemented as quickly as possible. I look forward to the Minister's response on this specific point as this will signal to us if our review is going to be followed through in the near future.

I should like to pay tribute to our consultants who were very helpful to us in this, our first major review of a Government Department. Their experience and insight on what was essentially a difficult area of public expenditure in terms of identifying actual services proved very useful to the committee.

Before concluding I wish to refer to two other areas which I regard as essential to a modern and efficient public service. First, I will mention computerisation. We heard evidence that there are weaknesses in the overall computer service provided under the aegis of the DPS and we have recommended how this important area can and must be improved. There is no point in having highly expensive computer equipment throughout the public service unless it is properly planned for, justified and controlled. We have made it clear in our report that changes should be made in all cases for ongoing services as this would force Departments to act responsibly when applying for new computer and other equipment.

Secondly, I am convinced that there should be more professional accountants and staff with financial expertise throughout the public service. If we are serious about reform and the more effective use of public expenditure, then it is vital that we have an adequate number of people with the right skills. I am not advocating an overall increase in staff numbers, but I am certain major savings can be achieved if we have expert advice available. This assumes that senior management in the service accept the need for such advice and see the benefits that can be achieved.

I am pleased to note that in his speech this evening the Minister said that the deficiency in the commercial accountanting skills in the Civil Service will be attended to in the White Paper.

I believe that the report of the committee will be an important contribution to an improved public service. I ask the Minister and his officials to accept it as a constructive document aimed at helping the Department and the wider public sector to become more efficient and to provide the taxpayers with a service to which they are entitled as a matter of course. I am not despondent about the matter as Deputy Ahern appeared to be. I will be very interested to chart during the coming year the progress of the recommendations contained in our report.

Mr. Keating

I find myself speaking for the third time today on the Department of the Public Service. I am tempted to believe it is on the basis that one cannot have too much of a good thing but I think it is probably more related to the fact that county council selections are on throughout the country today and that the more esoteric issues attaching to that are probably keeping the Deputies otherwise involved.

I wish to thank the Minister for a remarkably sympathetic response to our report. Of all the reports we have presented to date, no Minister has greeted a report from our committee with as much enthusiasm and co-operation and I thank him for that. I should also like to thank Deputy Ahern and Deputy Doyle for their contributions.

In a postscript to his speech the Minister referred to the question of numbers in the DPS. The best way to put this matter into perspective is simply to quote the facts as the committee understood them. Paragraph 23 of our report is very clear on the matter. It states:

The committee examined in detail the growth of DPS staff numbers since the establishment of the Department. The members were informed that over the period 1974 to 1983 the numbers in the DPS, excluding the Central Data Processing Service (CDPS) went up by 34 per cent. In the CDPS they went up by 123 per cent and the overall increase was about 65 per cent for the Department as a whole. Other increases in the same period included 8 per cent in the case of the Department of Defence, ...and 17 per cent in the Department of Finance staff. Within the DPS the number of Assistant Principals and more senior personnel has increased by 65 per cent since 1974 ...

I make that point simply to say that whether one accepts the adjective "inordinate" is not important: the facts show that there has been a significant increase in staff numbers in a Department, one of whose objectives is to try to ensure that staff numbers are kept as low as possible.

The background context has to be borne in mind. A vacuum was created in the Department of Finance when the rib that was to become the Department of the Public Service was removed from it in 1973 but this was very swiftly healed and the numbers were built up. I remember in the evidence given to the committee one feature that came to our attention, namely, that staff who were on career breaks or on leave of absence found that the DPS seemed to utilise that absence as an opportunity for recruitment to temporary posts and we referred to that in our report. That was what I would regard as a kind of backdoor recruitment. In net terms in the years from 1974 to 1983 there was an increase of about 65 per cent for the Department as a whole. It has to be said there has been a numerical decrease in the past year or so but that was largely facilitated by the removal of the CDPS from the Department of the Public Service. That simply meant moving figures from one column to another.

The Minister seemed to imply that our report failed to examine the vitally important remuneration and conditions division of the DPS and that, therefore, it might be less comprehensive than would otherwise be the case. We considered the question of pay and conditions during the hearing of evidence and if that evidence is read and analysed that fact can be borne out. However, we decided that the question of pay policy should be outside the ambit of the report. First, we wanted to concentrate on productivity improvements, on the control of numbers, advisory services, management and on those areas that have an impact on the quality, efficiency and effectiveness of the public service. We also felt it was appropriate to exclude it from the report because it was difficult for us to judge arrangements for achieving value for money without access to Government papers and a knowledge of the advice given to Ministers. However, I do not think that exclusion detracts from what is in the report.

While we recognise the vital importance of public sector pay policy, we decided to focus attention on issues relating to productivity and effectiveness. I need hardly say to the House that the public sector pay bill would not be a problem if public sector organisations were sufficiently productive and effective.

In his speech the Minister quoted our report as stating that in the management services unit there is not one cost accountant, one economist or one computer systems expert. Admittedly it is true there was no cost accountant. The Minister said that the deficiency in commercial accounting skills in the Civil Service will be attended to under the provisions of the White Paper. He went on to indicate the degree of skill which is in the public service. To a large extent we accept what he said. Our purpose was to indicate that in relation to the magnitude of expenditure and the number of staff overall, the DPS should ensure that an adequate number of skilled staff were available in the sections where they would be of most benefit. The committee are very much in favour of staff mobility but are convinced that expert advice should be available in key areas on a permanent basis. The report states that in the management services unit there is not one cost accountant, one economist or one computer systems expert, although a number of the personnel have an appreciation of these subjects. I note the comments of the Minister in this respect and welcome the addition of an officer with a higher degree in economics, which does not necessarily mean that one has a particular skill. There is room for a further increase in the range of skills available and increasing the average level and depth of experience of individuals within that area of the Department and the Department as a whole.

The Minister referred to the question of productivity. I admit that a global assertion about possible productivity improvements over a period of from five to ten years might appear to be a little glib, but after due consideration we assert that it is right and proper that the Department should have productivity targets. The targets we advanced are sustainable and achievable. Significant productivity improvements can be achieved within ten years, more or less in line with the projections we outline.

The Minister mentioned the rigid control of numbers and management surveys and also the implications of new technology. The committee were concerned with increasing efficiency rather than with the question of staff reductions although the question of redeploying or controlling staff numbers is important. For political, social and economic reasons one of the best ways to achieve progress is to get more out of people where there is a latent potential for that kind of possibility. Rigid control of numbers involves difficulties. Deputy Ahern made a valid point when he referred to the blunt instrument which the embargo is and in some areas it is arguably illogical to control numbers where there is an obvious benefit to the State in allowing a greater number of staff to be recruited. We should look again at the embargo and see if there is room to consider the degree of arbitrary bluntness which accompanies the manner in which the embargo applies. The rule applies regardless. It was an emergency measure and a sudden and dramatic attempt to do something about numbers but the time may now have come to see if we can refine that and use a little more wisdom in the way it is applied. The point made by Deputy Ahern is valid and I hope the Minister will take that on board as well when he gets an opportunity to consider the report in detail.

I wonder if the Minister is satisfied that progress in the area of technology is being made quickly enough. Perhaps in due course he might let us know to what extent he intends to avail of outside advice from the private sector, including consultants who might be able to help him in this regard. I would like to know if the central computing service differs from the CDPS. We were not happy about aspects of the capacity of the CDPS to respond to today's demands and we wondered why there was a great turnover of staff in the CDPS. Is it due to better pay elsewhere or is morale bad in that area?

The Minister referred to management. In fairness we must acknowledge that there have been positive developments in the CDPS since our review was initiated. We are pleased to note that they happened and that they concur with the kind of views which permeate the report before the House. We are glad to note that the Minister can report good progress. How does the performance compare with the plans the Minister had? The Minister is extremely enthusiastic and desires progress. Is he satisfied with the progress to date? I suppose that question is largely hypothetical. I hope the report will be of help of the Minister in pushing for speedier progress if that is possible.

The Minister referred to incentives. As a committee, we expressed considerable interest in incentives. Does the Minister intend to examine the suggestion that there should be a tangible incentive scheme for the Civil Service? Deputies Ahern and Doyle referred to this point. Should there be some kind of points system for work well done, or financial inducement and, conversely, in the case of people failing to meet targets? The key questions of motivation, morale, reward and sanction are all bound up with getting the very best performance from people no matter what walk of life they are in. Unless we create that framework for standards of excellence and for getting the best out of people we will always have an under-utilised public service.

The Minister referred to superannuation and pensions. We are concerned about the long term Exchequer costs. We were pleased to note the ready acceptance by the Minister of our proposal to carry out the necessary survey to estimate precisely the liabilities involved. We are pleased to note also that a costing exercise is under way. When will results be available? Perhaps the committee might be kept informed in that regard if possible as it is a matter not only of public expenditure importance but of pressing public policy importance.

The Minister referred to a pay-as-you-go scheme. He referred to the differences in the factors applicable to public service pension schemes and he said that at the end of the day it may make it preferable to adhere to the pay-as-you-go formula in the public service rather than to adopt a funding procedure. I am not so sure about that. We wanted to establish that whatever scheme we opt for we would do so in the full possession of the facts which at the moment are not available. The pay-as-you-go scheme is a cause of discontent in the private sector as people have an impression that there is a free pension scheme for civil servants. Every time one hears reference to the pensions of people in public life they are lumped into this category. Whatever about the civil servant having a perceived free pension, Oireachtas Members do not. We pay into a contributory scheme. If we are prematurely decanted out of the House before eight years we do not get the benefits returned to us. Perhaps the Minister might clarify the present pension scheme so that no undue injury would be inflicted on civil servants. There is no such thing as a free pension or a free lunch. Someone pays for it.

The Minister also referred to training. He said:

He fully agrees that the resources for training for higher management and training in programme management generally should be increased.

Obviously a demand for more resources is liable to meet with a mixed reaction. We are not necessarily convinced that better training automatically means increased resources. There is the question of the quality of existing courses and this was a cause of concern to the committee. Such courses may not be the most effective available and the consultant identified this as a problem. We are not looking for more money for courses but we are looking for more relevant and more effective courses and a qualitative improvement in existing courses.

The Minister referred to the question of charging for services. He said he always thought it would be a good idea if interdepartmental services were charged for. This question is vital. We will take up the Minister's suggestion and forward a copy of our report to the Committee of Public Accounts with a view to bringing about the necessary changes as quickly as possible. We believe there will be more accountability and responsibility on behalf of managers and Departments if true costs are spelled out and have to be paid for by Departments.

On behalf of my colleagues I note with approval the Minister's intention to consider favourable our recommendations in relation to manpower planning. My committee considered these recommendations to be among the most important in our report as they relate to matters absolutely central to the effectiveness of the Civil Service. They are central to the value we derive from our most valuable asset, our people. We cannot stress that too strongly.

I would remind the Minister again of some of the more serious problems which we identify in paragraph 74 and which our recommendations are designed to alleviate. Obviously the Minister could not refer specifically to all the various points but I would urge him to pay particular attention to recommendations Nos. 3, 21, 24 and 27.

I wish to comment briefly on the very valuable point made by Deputy Doyle about computerisation, that is, the wonderful opportunity and challenge which this technology presents. A sensitive and sensible co-ordinated approach in this area by the DPS could yield extraordinary benefits to the State in the coming years. It is only right that that factor should be drawn to the attention of the public.

I welcome very sincerely the tone and the content of what the Minister had to say. This leads many of us on the committee to regard our work as worthwhile but we will have proof of that in due course if the recommendations are implemented. The Minister's response has been warm and accepting and that is encouraging to us. It is right that the committee should take note of what Deputy Ahern said and also of what I said earlier today, that is, that the way in which criticism and suggestion is ventilated could lead to undue damage to public service morale. Often the public sector seems to be the whipping boy, expected to remain mute and take criticism which in many cases is aimed at it unfairly. My personal view is that the public sector is what the politicians have made it. If there are weaknesses and inefficiencies in the public sector, successive administrations must take the blame for that because of the failure to set clear targets, for not creating an environment in which the best can be extracted from people and for not producing award, incentive, encouragement and sanction where appropriate within the public service. We are supposed to do these things, not the public servant who is essentially part of the executive arm of Government.

Our public servants have done a tremendous job for the State since its foundation, sometimes during very difficult and turbulent times. When in other countries similar political situations presented themselves, public servants were not always found to be as trustworthy and as loyal as ours have been. The effectiveness of the Civil Service is of vital importance to all of us. In the past year many initiatives have been taken to improve its effectiveness and the value we derive from it. The Department of the Public Service have the central dynamic role to play in that process. My committee wish the Minister every success with his work in that respect. We trust our report will help him and he can be assured that we will be interested in his implementing our recommendations and that we will co-operate with him in that regard in every way possible in the months ahead.

I thank Mr. Kevin Murphy, the Secretary of the Department, and his officials who helped us in this our first review of a Government Department. They facilitated us in every way possible during those interviews. They helped to elucidate for us, and for the public who we hope will take some interest in these matters, what is perhaps not the most rivetingly important area but what is fundamentally an area of vital importance to the quality of life and of service in this community and which from the point of view of the taxpayer is of fundamental importance from the point of view of the cost implicit in the way we manage our Civil Service numbers. I trust the report will be interpreted in that spirit. I thank the Minister for his reaction to it and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

The Dáil adjourned at 8.35 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 5 July 1985.