Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

I wish to share time with Deputy Tom Barry. I welcome the opportunity to speak to this legislation and in particular the speed with which it was produced, given the fundamental change it brings to our most important Department. I have been impressed by the phenomenal speed with which this groundbreaking legislation has been produced. The nature of the provisions is testimony to the Government's determination to deliver on our most important pre-election promise, namely, reform of the public service. I regret that some of the previous speakers have left the Chamber because it seemed from what they were saying that they misunderstood the enabling nature of this legislation. It simply sets up a Department and transfers the powers to effect reform to the Minister, which is a necessary precursor to introducing reforms.

I am not sure who first coined the phrase that the public service is not fit for purpose but he or she caused considerable resentment among certain people. To resent that statement, however, is to resent reality and to confuse persons with process. The purpose of the public service has changed dramatically. Notwithstanding the current economic crisis, Ireland has grown and evolved, economically and socially, beyond recognition since the foundation of the State and the public service. Over that time, the country has been transformed from a low income, poorly educated and primarily rural based society into a modern, largely urban, highly educated and technologically smart economy. The public service has struggled to meet the changing needs of our people and economy but there has never been a fundamental restructuring, with the result that each new economic and social development was accompanied by a further accretion of procedures, practices and protocols, as well as bodies and agencies that offered well paid positions, particularly during the years of the Celtic tiger. Many of these bodies were appropriate at the time of their introduction but have lost their relevance over time and are now outdated and no longer serve the needs of the public.

The old ways of the public service strangled initiative and sapped the enthusiasm of thousands of capable and dedicated public servants. The time is ripe for change. Nobody wished for this economic crisis to happen but it brings into focus the need to renew our public service in a way that transforms administration rather than merely paying lip-service to the idea of reform. This legislation will enable such a transformation. The public service is not responsible for the economic crisis but it contributed to it through its deficiencies and shortcomings. It did not recognise the crisis when it first emerged and it lacked the flexibility and expertise to take corrective action to minimise the impact. Reforms can be made in many ways but the establishment of a new Department which allows an immediate and ongoing focus on the performance of our public service is essential. While changes are needed immediately, reform has to be an ongoing process. It is only through the ongoing questioning and scrutiny of every single function and penny spent that we will ensure the best delivery.

Nobody can deny that the Department of Finance has more than enough on its plate without taking on this massive task of reform but it will not be able to address these issues without change. However, I suggest the Minister should be wary of denuding the Department of Finance of its expertise and experienced staff when officials are transferred to the new Department of public expenditure and reform. Never has there been a greater need for the best available expertise than during this critical period of our history. Many comments have been made in the media and elsewhere about the lack of economic expertise in that Department and this may be part of the reason nobody shouted "stop" when the banks went on a borrowing spree to fund the building boom. It is probably futile to say what might have been but we must never leave ourselves exposed to that risk again.

The Department of Finance is not the only Department which was found wanting. The myriad of independent agencies, whether the HSE, the NRA or the NTMA, which mushroomed in recent years denuded parent Departments of their senior and best staff, who left for these well paid agencies. The programme for Government commits to bringing in new talent and skills not only to the Department of Finance, but all Departments by ensuring all posts at principal officer level and above are open to external competition. At least one third of all appointments over a period of five years will be reserved for those who are outside the traditional Civil Service structure. However, I am concerned about how this commitment will be achieved in the context of an embargo on recruitment. If ever we needed fresh thinking and new ideas, it is now. We need to hire these people now rather than when the crisis is over. I ask the Minister to ensure that, at the very least, the revenue raising and expenditure Departments, which are the core of the public service, are resourced and staffed by our best and brightest.

A commitment has also been made on cutting the number of State bodies, or the so-called quangos, which grew like Topsy during the Celtic tiger years. This should be one of the first tasks of the new Department. Some of them can be amalgamated or reabsorbed into their parent Departments but others are simply redundant because their functions have already been taken over by other agencies. There can be no room for sentiment in abolishing the latter. Costs may initially be associated with abolition because many of them have committed to leases and other agreements but these difficult decisions will have to be taken. Every agency, programme and spending line will have to be examined for relevance, necessity and efficiency and for every euro spent we must ask whether the expenditure is necessary and if there is a better or cheaper alternative. Crucially, we must ask whether the expenditure achieves its objectives. The overall objective of reform is to guarantee the best service possible to the public, be that in education, fishing or vaccination programmes. This will be a huge challenge in itself and we are all aware of countless examples of where aspiration and delivery diverged. Only recently we learned that people who took State sponsored training programmes had a lower chance of finding employment than those who did not take them. These improved services have, of course, to be delivered by fewer public servants. Even if money was not an issue, our public service is too big and has to be reduced. This will place great demands on existing staff. Change is never easy, although the fear of change often stifles progress. However, changed practices, flexibility and rotation of workers between Departments and bodies, as well as greater responsibility, autonomy and openness of Government, can enhance work satisfaction and opportunities for advancement. The current system does not reward excellence and that has to change.

Given the limited time remaining to me, I will briefly address the subject of procurement. I am aware of one example of procurement in the health service in which a child's walking appliance had to be imported through a single agent at a wholesale price three times the retail price. Surely somebody is in charge of procurement in the HSE who can search out value for taxpayers' money.

I have not had time to deal with the area of local government. While this may be slightly controversial, there is no excuse for the number of local authorities we have. There are approximately 117 and there is no way that can be justified. They should be a target for reform by the new Department.

See this speech in context