Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this debate. Discussion of public service reform cannot be used as a euphemism for cuts in the public sector. Past experience has made people justifiably concerned that this is what the Government is really getting at when it speaks of public service reform. A discussion on public service reform is needed, but it must be about how the State can deliver better public services in a more efficient manner and how it is to meet the needs of a growing population at a time when Exchequer revenues are in decline. We need to focus on how wastage and inefficiency can be eliminated and to discuss the type of public services we want. Many people are deeply unhappy with the low tax-low public services model that has been implemented in the past decade in particular. Is this model good for citizens or for the economy or competitiveness? Will it not end up costing us more in the long term?

The OECD report points out that while public expenditure has risen by 5% a year, "much of these increases have reflected a need to play catch-up from historically low levels". Public spending in Ireland is the third lowest in the OECD as a percentage of GDP. Significantly, the OECD report recognises the important role of the public sector in our economic achievements to date. However, we need to look at the best model of public service delivery internationally and learn from this. It is widely recognised that the Nordic countries deliver the most advanced public services. We should see what lessons we can learn from them. A wide-ranging debate is needed because any decision we take now will have implications long into the future. Will the task force the Taoiseach has spoken about look at these issues? A key priority that Sinn Féin and, I believe, the majority of people in the State want is increased quality and capacity within public services.

The population of the State has grown considerably in recent years from just over 3.6 million in 1996 to in excess of 4.2 million by 2006. In some areas, such as the greater Dublin area and the commuter belt, the population growth has been dramatic. Quite simply, public services have not been adequately expanded to meet this increased demand and the pressure is being felt in schools and hospitals in particular. As a result, we continue to have patients on trolleys in our hospitals and pupils taught in overcrowded pre-fabs. Public transport is full to capacity, particularly in urban centres, while rural areas lack proper public transport infrastructure. Social housing output has not been sufficient to meet demands and there are still approximately 43,600 families on housing waiting lists.

Public services such as health and education are not meeting people's needs or expectations. Obviously, achieving increased quality and capacity in public services has to involve getting better value for money in public spending. However, value for money cannot be equated simply with spending less. Well managed short to medium-term social investment will often yield medium to long-term savings to the Exchequer as other direct and indirect costs are reduced. We need to ensure that public money is used effectively to deliver improvements in public services, to deliver better and more efficient public services to meet the needs of all our citizens.

The OECD talks about the need for the public to be at the centre of the service. I do not believe that this is the case at present. Services and how they are delivered are not people centred and for many people this is less than satisfactory. For example, the recruitment ban in the HSE is the type of arbitrary action that takes little account of the impact on the public, which is trying to access the service. It is the kind of action that has long-term implications. The OECD states: "The development of longer term, more strategic budgetary mechanisms covering spending programmes, could contribute to greater certainty for senior management and more efficiency in programme deliver." I believe this is particularly true in respect of the health service. It is the absence of this type of approach that leads to decisions such as the recruitment ban in the HSE and the annual phenomenon of hospitals cancelling procedures and appointments in the last months of the year in order to meet budgetary constraints.

While Sinn Féin by no means agrees with all its recommendations, the OECD in its report on integrated public services has made interesting observations, some of which will not please the Government. It raises serious questions about the implications of the so-called decentralisation process, referred to more accurately by the OECD as administrative relocation. It makes clear that it has the potential to undermine the ability of the State to deliver integrated public services because it makes cross-departmental work more difficult. The reality is that the decentralisation process originated in short-term populist thinking. After all, decentralisation was introduced at the whim of a former Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy, without any debate or discussion with the stakeholders, such as trade union representatives, and without consideration of the implications for the future of governance and the public service.

This report highlights the need for the Government to consider again the decentralisation process. For example, we must ask whether we have ever had an accurate assessment of the cost of the process to enable us to determine whether it delivers value for money. With regard to many State agencies, decentralisation simply has not worked and will not work, and should be abandoned before any more money is wasted thereon.

Sinn Féin strongly agrees with the suggestion that devolution of greater powers to local government is required. Many services would be delivered better and more efficiently by local government, as is the practice in many other European states, which have well developed local government systems.

The report touches on the need to empower those who work in management positions within the public service to make decisions and take the initiative. That is important. There is a lot of media hysteria that creates a very negative impression of public sector workers, characterising them as lazy and over-paid. That suggestion is very unfair. Anyone who has interaction with those delivering health care and education can testify how untrue such assertions are. Employees in the public sector, as taxpayers like the rest of us, want to be part of a process that delivers a better and more efficient public service. Improving management practices must be part of this process.

When I began dealing with public servants, particularly after my election to Louth County Council in 1999, the efficiency and competence of some of the senior management staff of the local authority came as an unbelievably pleasant surprise. Like many other members of the public, I had perceived negativity in respect of many public sector workers but one of my first impressions on becoming elected was their competence and ability.

The report is rightly critical of the explosion in Government agencies, the number of which it estimates at 800. As a consequence, it notes "the Public Service remains segmented overall, leading to sub-optimal coherence in policy development, implementation and service delivery". The setting up of so many new agencies concerns many Members of the Dáil. These agencies are, in many cases, not accountable. We cannot obtain answers from the line Minister on the basis that this or that matter falls under the remit of a particular agency. This includes one of the most important agencies, the HSE.

While I appreciate opportunities exist for Oireachtas Members to meet HSE staff, as happened yesterday in my constituency where the four Oireachtas Members attended such a meeting, this is insufficient. While the staff are pleasant people and answer questions occasionally, their doing so is not the same as their being held to account in this House. That is a perfect example of a lack of accountability.

The sooner the HSE is disbanded or replaced, the better. Bad as the former health boards were, they allowed for some political accountability. At least members of local authorities or Members of the Oireachtas had a direct input into them. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case. While one could argue there is a regional forum in place, it does not have anything like the level of accountability that existed when the health boards were in operation. I do not say this with a hankering to return to the health board system — many who had to reflect on and deal with them had a bad experience — but the HSE serves as a good example of how State agencies can get out of hand entirely.

I look forward to further discussion on this matter in the near future and hope the Government will listen to some of the contributions.

See this speech in context