Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)

This Bill clearly gives legal effect to the division into two Ministries of the role formally held by the Minister for Finance. There is a need for a Minister with a public service reform agenda. As that did not happen in the good times when the money was available it makes it more difficult to do it in the bad times, and I acknowledge that. It is something of a blank cheque at the same time because we all know that public service reform is needed but it is a tough chestnut and it depends on the way that public service reform is done. It is important that this measure is not simply code for cuts but that there is a modernisation programme. It is important to have a Minister with that exclusive focus and a modernisation agenda at the Cabinet table.

I support the need for public service reform but that should not be code for cuts or for privatisation. The service must be rebuilt in a way that is efficient, makes best use of the limited public funds available and is much more citizen focused which as we all know it is not currently.

We should acknowledge also when there are successes. Brendan Gleeson, in his contribution during President Obama's visit last week, said we should stop looking at the ground. He is right, but if we are to do that there must be some balance. Those in the media have a role to play in that because there tends to be a latching on to a failing or some crisis in the public service and no acknowledgement of the contribution made.

Many civil and public servants are working harder and for less pay. They are constantly being told they are lucky to have a job. If we are all to put on the green jersey and if we are to stop looking at the ground, then there needs to be some appreciation for the work done by the vast majority of public servants. The majority of them have a desire to see a modernisation of the service in which they work. They want to see a service that they can be proud of, but I do not think it is that service. Even if we had all the money in the world, a modernisation programme would be required.

There is an obvious deficiency in the Croke Park agreement. The voice of those who avail of public services is largely missing. I do not see a master plan and this is a concern. We may end up with a smaller public service but we need to rebuild a service that can deliver the maximum with the money we can afford to spend. It is in everyone's interest that we design and rebuild a service that takes account of the needs of those who use it, and not just those who deliver it. This is absent at present.

I attended the launch of the report of the Ombudsman for Children this morning. Mr. Austin Currie launched the report and he was the first Minister of State with responsibility for children. He said his concern at the time was the lack of co-ordination. It was interesting that the case studies in today's report referred to the same lack of co-ordination. As public representatives, we do not need to be told about this because we see it every day. People approach us with their child with special needs who have just been given a diagnosis. They do not know which way to turn. That is the reality for many people. It falls back on the parents and only those who have the wherewithal to do so can provide for them. If I go into a house that has a child with special needs I will always find a big bundle of folders, as the parents will have become permanent lobbyists. That is because of a failure to have a seamless approach to the delivery of services, where the health and education services interlink and talk to each other. That does not happen and it must be part of the programme.

I posed a question to the Ombudsman about the Croke Park deal and her input. She was positively disposed to engaging with the issue. This is somebody who knows the failings because she deals with the cases, yet we are not using her as a resource. I know it is a statutory agency, but I would like to draw attention to this. If we are to go through this modernisation programme, we must have the output that we all desire, which is a better service.

We need to simplify the service. We need to define what constitutes a front line service and we need equity in the delivery of services, including their geographical location. Deputy Durkan on that side is a constituency colleague and he will know exactly what I am talking about. Areas in the outer part of Dublin have experienced rapid population growth but we have not received the corresponding public services to match that. We were the first to feel the cuts in the public service because they were low from the beginning. Embargoes represent a blunt instrument, so there needs to be some tolerance within the reformed system to account for that. For example, we have the lowest ratio of gardaí to population size. Kerry County Council has twice the number of staff as Meath, yet Meath has a slightly bigger population. All those things matter to the quality of services delivered and they need to be taken into account when dealing with public service reform. It is unacceptable that there is an inequitable distribution of services.

We also need to work smarter. An ICT system cannot be designed in a fragmented way, or else one system will not communicate with the other. That has happened in the past and it has been very wasteful. It cannot be done in a piecemeal way, but it can only reflect the system that exists. We must design our public service systems and work smarter by using ICT but we must design the systems with a plan that delivers on the potential of modernisation using smarter systems.

See this speech in context