Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)

If they could not even manage to decide who would be the Minister for Finance at the outset of the negotiations it is highly unlikely that they would be able to instil that across the 340,000 staff who work in the public sector. It is not an easy job to introduce change. I caution the Government on taking a high-handed approach or using bully-boy tactics to pursue its agenda. I hope that is not the agenda the new Minister is going to pursue. I doubt that it will be. With the greatest respect to the Minister, Deputy Howlin, I have every confidence in his capacity to manage the change that is necessary within the public sector.

We all recognise the necessity for change. In a situation of much reduced public expenditure as a result of a much tighter fiscal position there will be a requirement in some cases for fewer services. At a time when we had a greater buoyancy in the economy increased services were possible but the finances are no longer available to the Government. The change must be managed in a fair and equitable way. It must try to meet the most obvious and basic needs of society. The jackboot approach will not work in that regard. Change must be managed in a careful way.

The role that has been created for the Minister is confusing. As my colleague, Deputy Michael McGrath, indicated, there is a necessity to deal with the public reform agenda. That in itself is a broad brief. I am not sure that confusing reform with the review of public expenditure is a good combination. Deputies Michael McGrath and Seán Fleming are my party's spokespeople in the area. They have carried out a detailed analysis of the Bill and believe it will lead to greater confusion rather than greater certainty and less oversight rather than more, which is to be regretted.

Reform of Government fiscal policy and control is clearly needed. Various parties have published their proposals in that regard. Fine Gael's proposals did not include a new Department when the matter was discussed prior to the election. It suggested an approach akin to the UK chief secretary system which involves a Minister sitting at the Cabinet table with responsibility for public expenditure but who is subservient to the Chancellor and has no separate Department. While the Deputies opposite are correct in identifying the necessity for greater political involvement in the functions of the Department, there should not have been a requirement to create a separate Department. It will add to confusion rather than simplify matters. To some extent having two people at an equal level may bring about a greater level of conflict and make it more difficult for decisions to be made. As those of us who have worked in the private sector know full well, where there are two managers rather than one it can often prevent progress.

See this speech in context