Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the thrust of the Bill. Having tried to start some of this work, I have a certain sympathy with the Minister - that is not necessarily shared on this side of the House or, I suspect, on the Government backbenches - about the complexity of public service reform. It is extraordinary that a relatively normal day-to-day human resources act, such as redeployment, requires legislation.

I note the Minister emphasised the agreed nature of the Bill. It contains a number of robust provisions to guarantee that there will not be any abuse of the system. I was intrigued by the exclusions in section 57E, which include political offices. Therefore, any Senator who might plan on being redeployed in the event of the Seanad referendum going a certain way will not have any protection under this Bill. Given that many of them want to be redeployed in here, I suppose they will be happy.

In 2008, the OECD completed an important review concerning civil servants. That report, entitled Towards an Integrated Public Service, pointed out the need for increased flexibility and mobility for workers. We see redeployment as satisfying a specific need for a client, but also within the service itself, redeployment can offer career opportunities as well as a chance for people to move into different challenges that would otherwise not be available to them. Talented people can be left to stagnate for the want of such opportunities.

Redeployments that have occurred in recent years are welcome. Part of this Bill will reflect on FÁS workers who have moved to the new Intreo agency. It is important to stress that FÁS did fantastic work, but it was brought down by the actions of very few. The work of those moving into Intreo is incredibly important and in fact we need more of them. If Intreo is to be successful, it needs more resources, but that is a debate to be had within Government over the next three weeks.

Redeployment is allowing us to move people into areas of demand. That demand is from those seeking a State service to reskill. Without the ability to redeploy within the Civil Service, we cannot respond to that demand and people will suffer.

It is worth reading part of the OECD report into the record. It pointed out that few opportunities existed at that stage, in 2008, even for general staff to move within or across the service. The OECD also pointed out that limited mobility created challenges in sharing skills and competencies across the system and in reallocating resources to those areas most in need. At that stage, the report sought an integrated public service where individual public servants would be expected to have more varied careers across sectors.

Traditionally, many people have joined the staff of a Department and left aged 65 when they got a watch on retirement. That is not good for them or for the service. We need to share our experiences of different services within the public service.

The OECD report also called for a mobility policy to promote and facilitate the movement of general staff across different sectors. This Bill answers that call. One of the issues in Croke Park I was that that would happen, but that there would be some fairness involved in terms of not breaching a mileage limit.

People could not be randomly moved from one part of the island to another, the consequences of which was a slowing up of the process. This must be fair. It must be remembered that we are speaking about people and their families.

The OECD called for new arrangements for the redeployment of staff across organisational and sectoral boundaries to new higher priority activities which would assist in raising performance levels and would also meet a demand at the end of the service. Previously there were many rules in regard to the redeployment of people from the public to the Civil Service and from one Department to another, which meant that at the end of the day a person who wanted to move could not do so and the person who required the service did not get it. Some of the processes in place over the past number of years caused this.

The Minister referred to the ability of the Croke Park Agreement to facilitate much of what is proposed. The fact that 10,000 people have voluntarily moved indicates the pent up demand within the system for redeployment. It allows people to have different experiences and to use experience gained in one part of government in another. The impact of this can be seen in much better performance targets in, say, the Passport Office which has been transformed this year by the new appointments service. The ability to redeploy people to that office and the establishment of the new appointments service has addressed the delays there. Following much negotiation and the acceptance of many changes on the part of community welfare officers the Department of Social Protection is now benefiting from their experiences, the impact of which we are beginning to see on the ground. There are other examples.

There are a number of issues on which I seek clarification from the Minister. An issue raised by Senator Thomas Byrne, which the Minister mentioned briefly when pointing to the protections provided for under this Bill, is the need for more detail on the appeal process for redeployed persons for whom the protections set out in the Bill do not work. In other words, where a person is to be redeployed and he or she does not agree to that redeployment there should be in place a transparent appeals process to allow him or her appeal that decision. While the Minister's intentions may be good, future holders of that office may have less regard for people's rights in this area and the legislation could potentially be used as a more free-for-all process.

Why are semi-State bodies exempt from this legislation? The usual response is that they are different because they are commercial bodies. However, when they get into trouble and need a bailout they turn to their line Minister. I suspect there is capacity in some of the semi-State bodies that could be utilised in other semi-State bodies that require reform or to respond to a particular consumer demand. The same flexibility should be available within the semi-State sector. They enjoy the protection of the Government being their main shareholder and the protection this gives them commercially and resource-wise. If they enjoy that protection and benefit then there is an argument for their inclusion in the rules of staff management and training. I would welcome the Minister's views on that issue.

A number of issues arise in relation to training, which are exempt from the Bill. It should not be possible to redeploy a person to another area without providing him or her with some relevant training. There is little provision in the Bill in this regard. I accept this is a day-to-day management issue but it should be highlighted somewhere in the Bill that it should not be assumed a person has the required skill-set for a particular job. There is a need for a robust training budget alongside any redeployment programme. If we are to get the full benefit of redeployment in terms of using and sharing expertise an adequately funded training programme is required. The Minister might respond to this issue in his closing remarks on the Bill.

Fianna Fáil welcomes the Bill, which though small in size, is important in terms of the legal certainty it provides to the 10,000 people who have been redeployed in terms of their careers and the services they provide. One would hope that this Bill will allow us to begin addressing other issues. For example, the social welfare appeals service would benefit from a redeployment to its offices of experienced people in order to address the serious delays therein. I acknowledge the progress made over the summer in terms of the reduction in the number of domiciliary care allowance applications waiting to be dealt with. However, waiting times in respect of carer's allowance applications and for other payments remain lengthy. I acknowledge a social welfare appeals officer requires a certain skill set but additional staff are required in this area. There are similar delays in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. It is hoped that when this Bill is enacted Ministers will be aware of its provisions and will have the confidence to seek the type of experience required to address delays in their Departments.

Fianna Fáil supports the Bill but will propose a couple amendments on Committee Stage in an effort to improve it.

See this speech in context