Vol. 573 No. 5
7 Mr. S. Ryan asked the Minister for Finance, further to the proposed shedding of 4,300 jobs in the public service, the steps being taken to ensure that this measure does not lead to a reduction in the public service; if these job reductions have been agreed with the social partners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25786/03]
I announced last December that there would be a reduction of 5,000 in authorised numbers in the public service over the next three years. I have made it clear on numerous occasions since that I want to avoid or minimise the effect on front line staff providing a service for the public and ensure essential services to the public are not affected. I consulted my ministerial colleagues on their contribution to the reduction in that context.
The Government approved my proposals on the timing and distribution of 4,300 of the 5,000 reduction last June. The breakdown by sector is as follows: health sector – a total reduction of 600; education sector – a total reduction of 1,000; Civil Service – also a reduction of 1,000; the Garda Síochána – no reduction; the Defence Forces – a reduction of 400; local authorities – a reduction of 1,000 and a reduction of 300 in the non-commercial State-sponsored bodies. I recognise that additional possibilities of achieving reductions in numbers may emerge at a later stage. Accordingly, I intend to revisit this issue early in 2004 to see where the balance of 700 posts can be identified.
The implementation of the reduction in individual organisations is a matter for the management of each organisation. In the context of the substantial increases in public service numbers in recent years, the reduction is small enough to be manageable without having a serious effect on service delivery. In keeping with the partnership approach to industrial relations in the public service, I encourage dialogue with staff representatives on the implementation of the reduction in individual organisations. The Government decision to reduce numbers by 5,000 was announced by me in my Budget Statement in December 2002 and accordingly known to all parties when the Sustaining Progress agreement was negotiated earlier this year.
I ask the Minister to reply to my question. I remind him that this is only his third time to speak in the House since this session commenced. We do not get to meet him often or hear him give explanations. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform indicated during the week that the 2,000 additional gardaí were back on the agenda. We know there is a dire shortage of gardaí and community gardaí throughout the country. How does the Minister reconcile the crisis in policing with his determination to cut the number of public service employees? If he is sticking to his agenda to cut the number of public service employees, does he agree with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform that he will look at the requirement for 2,000 extra gardaí, as indicated this week?
As I said, the 5,000 reduction I announced in my Budget Statement last year in the public service over the next number of years does not include a contribution from the Garda Síochána.
Are there any increases? Can the Minister give us the net figure for increases and decreases?
The question relates to the 4,300 jobs in the public service. I gave the details of how the figures were made up, which were announced in June this year. There is not any reduction required from the Garda Síochána. As regards the commitment in the programme for Government to provide extra gardaí—
Some 2,000.
—we intend to be in government until June 2007.
The question to which I have not heard any answer is how the Minister will ensure these cuts do not impact on public service delivery. How will he ensure they do not hit patients who need care, for example? I do not know what it is like in his constituency but in mine the home help service hours are being cut in half and day care and respite care services are unable to cope. These are front line services. It seems bureaucracy is being protected, while front line services are suffering. How will the Minister cut 4,300 or 5,000 jobs without affecting such services? How will he ensure such cuts come from administration overheads, not from front line services? Can he indicate how he will achieve this?
In last year's Budget Statement I specifically said – it took a number of months to finalise it – that there would not be any effect on front line staff. It is up to each individual line manager in Departments and agencies to follow this policy. I have given an outline of where the figures come from. It is up to the particular organisations to do their job. There was a dramatic increase in the number of public servants between 1997 to 2002. The figure I gave on budget day was 280,000. There was an increase of 50,000 in the previous five years. It was one of the reasons for the substantial increase in current spending at the time which was necessary as extra staff were needed in the areas of health and education. The reduction will not affect front line services. Given the substantial increase in public service numbers in recent years, a reduction of 5,000 is not too much. It is a realistic figure which should be easily achieved.
Does the Minister believe in the concept of social capital? Is he concerned that of the 4,300 cuts he has announced, 1,000 are in the education sector and that many of those involved are classroom and special needs assistants? Does he accept that this is not in line with his response and that it will ultimately prove to be a false economy?
When the Minister says such cuts will not have any effect on front line services, I do not have any doubt that we could give him examples of where that is not the case for many affected in our constituencies. I cite one example of the day care centre in Cootehill, County Cavan. A new health centre was provided with a day care centre facility which has not yet been humanly resourced. It needs four people – a nurse administrator, a driver and two assistants – to provide daily care five days a week for the senior citizens in the town and its extensive hinterland.
It is the same in Baldoyle.
It would cater for 200 people in one week, yet the appointments have not been made. Voluntary groups such as the senior citizens' group in Cootehill and others which work to aid the needs of senior citizens in our community have been offered a turn of the key in the door in that they can access and use a health board facility without human resource assistance, while providing their own public liability insurance. When the Minister says it will not have an effect in such instances, that is not true because that is exactly what has happened. I appeal to him to ensure the situation I outlined, which is only one example and repeated elsewhere, as Deputy Richard Bruton said, is not allowed to continue and that the embargo on recruitment for front line services is lifted with immediate effect from the start of 2004. He must do this.
Is the Minister willing to give us a detailed breakdown, not under departmental headings, of where the reductions have taken place to date? What about the closure of many of the respite facilities in the Northern Area Health Board for older people due to staff being let go or their contracts not being renewed? They are front line services.
Deputies may be slightly confused about the decision to reduce numbers in the public service with overall cost reductions in some agencies. There may be an overlap between some of them. The specific question relates to the reduction in the number of jobs in the public service. Line managers in various organisations may be taking steps to live within their budgets, which they should have taken some time ago. It may not be connected to the reduction in numbers. The reduction in numbers in the public service does not relate to front line staff. That was the Government's decision but it is up to each body to do its job. The other reductions may have something to do with overall management or cost efficiencies with which managers must deal.
That is not the case. I have it confirmed in writing.
Deputy Boyle asked if I believed in social capital. There has not been a Minister for Finance in the history of the State who did more about it. Instead of talking about it, I increased numbers in the public service, particularly in health and education, by 50,000 in the previous five years. I increased public spending twofold during the period in many of the areas to which the Deputy referred. The additional costs in health and education related mostly to people because that is what the services needed. I cannot lightly resist the allegation that I have done nothing about it. No Minister for Finance has ever increased public spending in these areas by as much as I have.
The Minister has nothing to show for it.
What will the Minister do to address the problems we have outlined? What steps will he take?
We have spent nearly 12 minutes on this question. We must move on to Question No. 8.
Could the Minister afford us at least the courtesy of an answer? What steps does he propose to take?
