Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Absolutely. There is a thought.

The Government's narrative on the reason we need enhanced mobility in the first instance and the Minister's interpretation of what a reformed public sector should look like, are at variance with the intent of this Bill. The Minister has told us time and again that a key element of his reform agenda is a reduction in the size of the public service. By 2015, this Government, with considerable help from Fianna Fáil, will have reduced the public sector workforce by up to 12% since 2008. We are told redeployment is crucial to the Minister's reform strategy.

The already mentioned and much discussed OECD report from 2008, Ireland: Towards an Integrated Public Service, noted the need for increased flexibility and mobility of workers throughout the system. It highlighted the problems of limited mobility with particular reference to sharing skills and competencies across the system and reallocating resources to where they are most effective. Redeployment has happened, not on a grand scale but at a pace not achieved prior to 2008. However, redeployment has not taken place because of a desire by Government to reform fundamentally our services for the betterment of citizens but instead because of an environment of crisis created by it and the previous Government, which the current Government has caused to deepen.

When discussing public sector numbers the inference is often made that our public sector was "bloated" prior to 2008. When one examines the evidence, this was not the case. Public sector employment as a share of the labour force was just under the OECD average in 2008 when numbers were at their highest. By comparison with eight countries, including Britain, Canada and the Netherlands, Ireland had the third lowest general government employment per thousand of population. It is worth restating this because people sometimes, perhaps disingenuously, try to suggest that the system was bloated and overmanned. The bottom line is that this Government, aided by the previous Administration, has fundamentally undermined the delivery of the critical services on which our citizens are now more reliant than ever. Over the last number of years, we have witnessed the slow and painful dismantling of services, particularly in health and education.

The incentivised retirement scheme introduced last year was not targeted. The Minister simply sought to slash crudely and without any thought beyond the bottom line public sector numbers.

Vital services such as mental health have still not recovered and all the redeployment in the world will not fix the problem.

To give an example of the reality on the ground, Government agencies such as the Health Service Executive, when questioned on extensive delays in accessing services, provide Deputies with a stock answer along the lines that, unfortunately, due to a combination of very high demands being placed on the service in question and insufficient staff numbers, they are unable to provide the service in question. This means, for example, that school aged children living in north-west Dublin do not have access to physiotherapy services due to cutbacks and a lack of staff, while children requiring speech and language therapy are waiting up to 24 months before receiving therapy.

What are the real time outcomes of decisions to downsize, shed staff and fundamentally undermine service provision? A child with speech and language difficulties starting a junior infant class will have to wait two years before receiving the therapy she or he needs, she or he will not be entitled to special needs assistance and will be in much bigger class than was the case previously. It is astonishing that the Minister for Education and Skills and the Minister Health do not even discuss this cross-over in policy areas. It would be awful if this were to be the Labour Party's legacy in government.

Redeployment is an effective tool for generalist staff and should be used. However, what use are mobility and skill-sharing if the Ministers in charge are blissfully unaware of the fundamental damage many of their decisions are doing to service delivery? The proposition that Cabinet members do not even discuss shared policy and service delivery across Departments is mind boggling. For the Minister, redeployment means scrambling around for staff to patch up the gaping holes he has left in service delivery. This was not the vision set out in the OECD report. Redeployment was and should be about increasing staff competencies, improving performance and properly integrating our public service. It should create an environment in which workers actively seek redeployment to new areas where they can develop their skill sets. We should be at a point where an expert in political reform and governance from one of our universities can seek and take up a position in the public service reform and delivery division of the Minister's Department. This is the culture that could and should be fostered within our public services. While this culture resides within the workforce, unfortunately it is not so evident on the Government benches.

We have before us primary legislation which removes the legislative barriers to redeployment and mobility across the wider public sector. This is a great proposal which enjoys the support of all Deputies, and the Minister should, therefore, get on with implementing it. What I am much more interested in discussing with him, however, is how his Government plans to undo the damage it has done to service delivery and how and when it intends to take on the necessary specialty staff to fill the gaps in service delivery in health and education. The Minister and I both know that redeployment will not solve this problem. Where is the Minister's roadmap for reform of service delivery? How does the Government propose to improve service delivery for citizens, young and old, during the remainder of its term in office?

Deputy Calleary referred to the semi-State companies and I wish to sound a note of concern regarding the movement of staff between State agencies. I refer, in particular, to a case where anxiety is current, namely, the challenges facing workers in the national lottery company who face an uncertain future. Whereas the majority of the employees are on permanent secondment from An Post, it appears a return to the company for those who may wish to rejoin the mother ship, as it were, is not on the table. A similar issue is brewing in respect of employees working in Bord Gáis Energy who may wish to remain as employees of Bord Gáis following the sale of the supply division. While I fully appreciate the context is different for profit-making, dividend delivering semi-State companies, core issues must be teased out in respect of the rights of employees.

Will the Minister explain his decision to include, as an amendment to the legislation, a statutory arrangement regulating sick leave? While I do not oppose the move, I seek an explanation of the rationale for inserting the provision in the Bill, rather than as a stand-alone measure.

See this speech in context