Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

I do not agree with the Deputy. The public service pay agreement, which comprises the Croke Park agreement, has been maintained by the Government. It is sometimes forgotten that the agreement was negotiated against a background of escalating industrial action and put an end to that. In accepting the Croke Park agreement public servants have accepted the imposition of a pension levy and pay cuts, resulting in an average combined reduction of 14% in pay.

There has also been a reduction of about 12,000 in public service numbers since the end of 2008. In line with the national recovery plan, there will be an overall reduction of almost 25,000 by the end of 2014, from an end of 2008 base reference period. In contrast with the experience of other countries where less severe reform measures have been pursued, we have been able to maintain service continuity, which is particularly important for the most vulnerable in our society.

The reduction in numbers means that there has been increased productivity across the public service, as well as a reduction in the public service pay bill. We are getting more work and output for less money. The process will have to continue, in terms of maintaining stability in the public finances and getting to the point where we can bring balance back into our public finances.

I do not accept the contention of the Deputy that there has been a breach of the Croke Park agreement. It is a public service pay agreement with transformation commitments made therein, on the basis that we want a sustainable public service for the future which is well-resourced, affordable in the context of the circumstances in which we find ourselves, which will be reformed and will enable people to contribute on the basis of a sustainable financial position. It is in everyone's interests for that to happen. To do otherwise would be to put at risk job security for those in the public service and the avoid compulsory redundancies.

Any sectors in the public service which do not undertake the commitments of the deal cannot expect the benefits which arise from it. We are seeing commitment and leadership across a cohort of people numbering some 300,000. Leadership at all levels will be required to bring about the changes which are necessary and that are agreed need to be implemented, albeit in difficult circumstances. It needs to be done and we are working in line with the agreement to achieve that.

A redeployment mechanism and changes in practices are necessary. All the measures are fundamental. Despite economic constraints, the Government has abided by the agreement on pay, compulsory redundancies and pension terms. Public servants, their unions and managers all have to abide by the commitments which have been entered into to pursue flexibilities and reforms in every part of the public service. We have made commitments to the continued reduction in the cost of the public service. If the Government is to be held to its side of the agreement these reductions must be delivered. That is the situation and it is important that we all work with that in mind.

A report on the future organisation of the Department, conducted by a number of external people, is due to be finalised and published. It will examine the past ten or more years. The review of the performance of the Department is being conducted by an independent review panel and will be forthcoming in due course. Of necessity, any review of fiscal policy and public spending over the past ten years will include the influences referred to, such as social partnership, Government programmes and commitments.

What were spoken of as policy failures by Deputy Gilmore in an earlier question must be considered against the context of the failures identified at the time by the Labour Party. These included inadequate social provision and spend which were not sufficient to meet the needs of the day. There is now the prospect that we will hear about failures because we spent too much. It will be interesting to see that analysis.

During those years, probably without exception, every policy initiative which was brought forward was welcomed, in some cases because they were consistent with the social partnership or other commitments which involved the expansion of social policy goals, increasing objectives and improving the position of people, which one would expect at a time of economic growth and financial surplus. The critique always was that more should be done.

See this speech in context