Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)

Last week in reply to an oral question put by my colleague, Deputy Mary Lou McDonald, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, outlined his view of his job and priorities. He said:

I am fixated with two things, namely, restoring the economic sovereignty of the State, which is a job I have been given, and reforming the public service. We will do both and are in the process of doing both. In the first year we have achieved a remarkable amount.

There is no doubt that the Government has achieved a remarkable amount in restoring our economic sovereignty and public sector reform. However, we are told, on the one hand, that austerity and cutbacks in the public service are required to regain economic sovereignty, while, on the other, the Labour Party is at the same time supporting the transfer of economic sovereignty through a treaty that will remove the flexibility available to this and future Governments to respond to economic difficulties. Already German parliamentarians are discussing proposals in respect of the economy before they are even discussed in this House. We have a treaty that in legislation will continue austerity beyond the life of the Government. A remarkable amount has been achieved by the Government, yet €21.3 billion has been handed over to banks since it came to power, while in the budget €2.2 billion worth of cuts were made to vital services. The rates of unemployment, at 14%, and emigration have remained rigid and static. In fact, more people are emigrating than gaining jobs in the State. Therefore, Government actions have failed in restoring our economic sovereignty.

In regard to the Minister's other fixation, public sector reform, we all agree that there is a need to reform the public service to ensure it is fit for purpose and the delivery of a First World service to citizens in an efficient and effective manner. We need to put in place a system of accountability throughout the public sector, but particularly at senior management level. Secretaries General, local authority managements and VEC chief executive officers are all responsible for spending billions of euro of taxpayer's money. They are responsible for spending the wealth of the people and the buck stops with them.

The actions of the Minister demonstrate a fixation not with public sector reform but an ideological attack on the public sector in terms of its size. It appears the Labour Party has bought into Fine Gael's concept of small government, with which it is preoccupied. While I do not agree with the Minister opposite, I congratulate him on the efficient manner in which his party has whipped the Labour Party into line on this issue. Was the first act of the Labour Party to reduce the excessive pay and pensions of high earners in the most senior echelons of the Civil Service? Did it seek to hold those at the highest levels of the public service to account for the economic crisis that many of them had helped to shape? Did the Minister take as his starting point in seeking reform the experiences and expectations of citizens? No, of course not. He and his Cabinet colleagues have slashed essential budgets in the health and education sectors. They have, however, failed to reel in the excessive payments made to senior public servants. They brought forward a blunt instrument to deal with retirements. This plan which could be described as an unplanned and unco-ordinated system has led to 9,000 job losses, this from a Government which has promised to create 100,000 new jobs. It is clearly moving in the wrong direction. There is no plan, rather this is about a head count.

There are 6,700 staff in the Civil Service who earn more than €100,000 a year. That is a phenomenal amount of money which is three times the average industrial wage. This excessive payment is being guarded by Fine Gael and the Labour Party while they chip away at the salaries of new teachers on the lowest level and services throughout the State. Under the Minister's watch, Secretaries General have retired on full pension - one at 53 years of age, with special severance payments of up to €140,000, in addition to lump sum and annual pension payments of more than €100,000. Despite the Government spin, the retirement scheme will not deliver public sector reform or lead to a more efficient service, rather it guards those paid the most. It will, however, lead to the loss of skills and experience within the public sector. More than half the retirees have 30 years experience. An accumulated 270,000 years of experience is being lost without a plan to safeguard public services. In the first two months of the year 2,567 workers in the health service, 2,058 in the education sector, 310 in the Garda Síochána, 1,236 in local authorities and 931 in the Defence Forces have left.

In the absence of a plan to meet the skills deficit the only option open to the Minister is clear - to allow the services already under strain to cover the holes. In other words, the weight will come down on the shoulders of the workers remaining in the system. They will carry extra responsibilities, while those who have retired will receive their money. This is not scaremongering. Already within the education sector 383 posts are being filled by teaching staff in receipt of pension payments. I ask the Minister to monitor and report on the number of retirees who will return to work in the public service because this makes a mockery of the system proposed. We have reduced numbers, resulting in a loss of experience and a reduced level of service, yet we are willing to pay people pensions and a wage to do the jobs they were doing. It is clear the Government rushed into reducing the headcount in the public service without having a plan in place. The Minister is now trying to make the best out of the mess created.

There are savings to be made in the public sector and there is a need to realise them. However, it appears the Government views public services as a burden on the public purse, as a column on the governmental spread sheet. It needs to move away from this ideology that the public service is a burden. It was elected to deliver services. It was charged with economic management in order to deliver wealth and prosperity, an economy for the benefit of all citizens and high quality, efficient and effective public services. That is why people voted for it.

As the Minister said, the key issues facing his Department are the need to regain economic sovereignty and the delivery of public sector reform. I look forward to his explanation of how the fiscal treaty or, as I called it earlier, the fiscal union, the school-closing treaty, the hospital-closing treaty, the emigration treaty and the unemployment treaty will enhance our sovereignty. These are the outworkings of shrinking the economy beyond 2016 and into 2018. How will this increase the size of the economy or restore economic sovereignty?

With regard to public sector reform, we have a retirement programme designed to drive down the headcount and deliver a headline. However, this does not mask the lack of a strategic plan to deliver better public services. What we are facing is the immediate loss of a range of skills and our choice is between leaving posts vacant, thus reducing the quality of public services, and rehiring workers and paying them both a wage and a pension. Impím ar an Aire féachaint arís ar an rud seo agus a dhícheall a dhéanamh athrú a dhéanamh.

See this speech in context