Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

The premise of the Deputy's argument suggests no change can be beneficial to the delivery of services and that fewer people working in an area cannot, by definition, provide a better service. I do not subscribe to that. We have seen changes in a whole range of areas.

For example, everyone will agree the Revenue Commissioners' provision of online services and re-organisation has led to greater throughput, efficiencies and that the time involved in serving customers and citizens has been greatly reduced. The same applies to the Department of Social Protection where computerisation has greatly reduced the need for person-to-person interaction and made it easier for people to obtain services and be aware of their entitlements.

The greater use of technology in the public service and changing how these services are delivered can bring about a far better result with fewer public servants than may have been the case in the traditional arrangement of people queuing for a service delivered from a window-hatch or cubicle.

Over phe last quarter of a century we have been in the process of implementing a new and welcome change in how psychiatric services are provided, moving from an exclusively institutional model to a far more community-based one. That in itself has meant that the requirement in terms of numbers needed to treat those in an institutional setting has totally changed, and rightly so. Rather than having psychiatric hospitals deliver such issues in splendid isolation from other hospital services, we now see the modern approach, which is to build acute psychiatric services within general hospital settings. In that way the overall health of patients is catered for in a far more holistic and comprehensive way than would have been the case traditionally. The old system of care had its origins in the Victorian age, rather than in the modern age.

The two examples the Deputy set out are good reasons change is necessary and how change with fewer public servants does not mean that there is a diminution of service. In fact, there is an enhanced, augmented and more modern service available.

By definition, the moratorium can be regarded as a blunt instrument, although exceptions are provided for by the Minister for Finance. It was a good control measure in the absence of an overall industrial relations framework in which to implement a more comprehensive set of reforms. We now have those and while the moratorium must continue to exist because of the need to work against simply increasing numbers without reference to the possible cross-over of people from other areas where there is less activity, by retraining or otherwise, into new areas of demand, or where services need to be augmented by more personnel, that is the way to ensure efficiency and effectiveness.

The overall industrial relations framework we now have enables service-wide change and reorganisation to take place in a way that is planned, understood and negotiated. It can be done with the mechanisms that have been put in place, including time-limited appeal mechanisms, so that matters get resolved rather than a process taking over and change being postponed for a period which is simply too long in current circumstances.

In fairness, all of that has been agreed to as the means by which we will address these issues. For the future, I see a public service which will employ fewer numbers in the overall context but which will be as responsive and flexible as possible. It will use all the modern IT systems to enable people to interact and interface with the service in an efficient and timely way. We will also have professionals working within the service at all levels who are in a better work environment, which maintains a public service ethos whereby people are treated well and are accorded the appropriate dignity as citizens. That is a strong ethic which still permeates the service, although there are many who would be frustrated because of the rigidity of structures. In the past, hierarchical structures were built up which had their place in a different era, but we now need far more collaborative teamwork approaches because many of the old demarcations are no longer relevant. They need to be addressed.

We have an important opportunity, driven as it is by circumstances and resources.

It is also driven by the initiative of public service workers and management to work together to bring about the changes necessary so that we have a sustainable level of service into the future. This should take cognisance of the fact that there are limits to our resources and demographics at play that require us to plan ahead into the medium and long term and redeploy resources to where they are most needed. We must also ensure that we find ways around the problems that arise, through technology, shared services, better procurement practices and a whole range of initiatives in addition to human resource issues that can bring about a better outcome for everyone, including the taxpayer.

See this speech in context