Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 1: To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the recommendations of the OECD report on the Irish public service; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30643/09]

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 2: To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation in his Department of the report of the task force on the public service; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31180/09]

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 3: To ask the Taoiseach the progress made to date in 2009 regarding the implementation of the recommendations of the OECD report on the Irish public service; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32531/09]

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 4: To ask the Taoiseach the implementation in his Department of the report of the task force on the public service; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32532/09]

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, together.

The OECD review of the Irish public service, Towards an Integrated Public Service, was published in April 2008. This report, which benchmarked the public service in Ireland against other comparable countries and made recommendations as to the further direction of public service reform, was an authoritative assessment of the Irish public service. It confirmed the many strengths of the system and identified challenges that needed to be addressed.

Transforming Public Services, TPS, sets out an ambitious programme of renewal for the entire public service. It represents the blueprint for a new type of unified public service, focused on common goals, with greater co-operation and reduced boundaries between sectors, organisations and professions. It also focuses on a much greater integration of services around user needs and far greater efficiency in internal data sharing and administration through shared service models. Implementation of the change programme is being overseen by the Cabinet committee on transforming public services, which I chair. The work of the Cabinet committee is being supported by a steering group of Secretaries General and the Transforming Public Services programme office, which is based in my Department, working closely with the Department of Finance.

Progress has been made in a number of areas to date. The special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes was established as part of the Transforming Public Services framework and its report was published last July. The recommendations of the special group are being considered by the Government in the context of the 2010 Estimates and budgetary process and decisions on the proposals will be taken in that context.

A range of instruments has been developed in the human resource area to contribute to the implementation of expenditure savings for 2009, notably the incentivised scheme of early retirement in the public service, the special Civil Service career break scheme and the shorter working year scheme, together with the moratorium on the filling of public sector vacancies by recruitment or promotion.

Responsibility for e-Government policy and central operations has been consolidated in the Department of Finance. That Department is currently working with all public bodies to develop a rolling programme of e-Government projects across the public service. The latest EU e-Government benchmarks show that Ireland's ranking for on-line sophistication has now improved from 17th to joint 7th position. Significant savings can be realised from the improved professionalisation of procurement and, to this end, the new national public procurement operations unit has been established within the Office of Public Works. This unit is working to leverage the public service's buying power by organising procurement of common goods and services across the public service.

Work is ongoing in developing specific proposals in the area of shared services on the basis that there are significant potential savings associated with such initiatives. Groups of senior officials have been established to advance shared services in the human resources, pensions, payroll and financial shared services area. The work on shared services is being advanced within the HSE, the Civil Service, local government and in the education sector.

The organisational review programme, ORP, has been extended so that all Departments and major offices will be reviewed within the next three years. The ORP team, based in the Department of the Taoiseach, carries out and publishes assessments of the capacity of individual Departments and major offices to meet their challenges over the coming years. Four organisations have been reviewed so far this year — the Department of Health and Children, the Office of the Revenue Commissioners, the Central Statistics Office and the Property Registration Authority. The reviews are due to be published around the end of the year and will be accompanied by follow-up action plans on the key findings prepared by each of the four organisations.

In line with Transforming Public Services, a new round of value-for-money reviews was approved by the Government in late 2008. Reviews under the new arrangements for the value for money and policy review initiative are under way in 12 Departments. These reviews focus on evaluations of significant areas of expenditure and major policy issues with a focus on health, education, social welfare and justice sectors.

Work is under way on the development of new performance and governance frameworks for State agencies and the greater use of service level agreements in this context. A new code of practice for the governance of State bodies was published in May. In addition, work is well advanced on the merger, abolition, etc., of a number of State agencies in line with the announcement of 30 agency rationalisation proposals in the 2009 budget. A further 43 rationalisation measures were proposed in the special group report and those proposals are under consideration.

In line with the priority actions set out in Transforming Public Services, the intensive discussions resuming with unions are addressing the development of new highly flexible arrangements for the redeployment of staff to areas of highest priority in the public service. These discussions are ongoing.

Work has also commenced on some of the numerous commitments relating to improving customer focus. A group of senior officials is currently examining the feasibility of introducing a single point of telephone contact service and is developing a fully costed business plan to support this work. A request for information was recently issued to a number of companies in respect of this project. A group has also been established to determine the feasibility and value of mechanisms to simplify the provision of means information by citizens to public bodies. The programme office in the Department of the Taoiseach is also undertaking surveys of Civil Service customers and the results of these surveys, of citizens and businesses, will be published by the end of the year.

In addition, a number of other priority actions from TPS, such as extending individual performance management systems across the public service and strengthening existing systems are the subject of discussions with the public service unions. In the renewed programme for Government, the Government has set out a number of specific actions relating to performance measurement and reward in the public service, recruitment and promotion arrangements and a range of strengthened governance procedures for State agencies.

Deputies will be aware that the radical transformation of the public service is the subject of discussions with the public service unions at present in the context of making the necessary savings to the overall public service pay bill. These important discussions will resume this afternoon.

I am disappointed that industrial action took place yesterday, particularly as efforts to find agreement are continuing. At a meeting with senior union leaders last Friday, I urged the unions to ensure that appropriate and responsible emergency cover arrangements were put in place and I understand that this was the case yesterday. I want to acknowledge the decision by public service unions involved in the flood relief effort to suspend their action. We now have to move on and focus on the intensive series of meetings which commence this afternoon to see if we can still reach agreement.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is a lengthy reply which has been prepared for the Taoiseach. The OECD report made a number of recommendations and referred to the collapse of value-for-money disciplines and the damage done by an ill-thought out decentralisation programme. It referred to the habit of creating new agencies for every problem, the inability to deliver on the ambitions of e-Government and the refusal to tie pay increases in the public service to a tangible reform agenda.

It is 18 months since that report came through and it is 12 months since the task force set up by the Government to review public service reform reported back to the Government with a three-year comprehensive plan to provide reform. The public service did not cause the current problem, but it will clearly take what it gets. What is really causing a major problem is the fact that the only solution coming from Government is an austerity programme or plan. Leaving aside the response prepared for him, has the Taoiseach a view of his own on what sort of public service he wants to see in two or three years time?

The Taoiseach is entering discussions today and I hope those discussions will be meaningful and that there will not be another one-day strike next week. The Taoiseach chairs the committee. What sort of public service does he want to see in two or three years time? Will we have a public service that is rewarded for its initiative and where hard work is recognised? Will it and those it serves have a leaner, more efficient and more effective service?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not agree with the Deputy's negative assessment of the OECD report. One of the great problems in discussing this issue is the failure to acknowledge those parts of the public service and delivery systems that are working well. At the same time, I candidly acknowledge some aspects are not working as well and that best practice is not being provided right across the system.

A good service is down to good management, staff and representatives and people working together in a collaborative way to ensure their organisation provides the public service the people need, one that is citizen centred and which tries to adapt at all times, with limited resources, but using technology and modern workplace practices, encouraging flexibility and empowering people at the front line involved in public service provision to assist in helping to fashion and design what needs to be done. That is an ongoing process that is not completed on any particular day. It is a process, culture and commitment to change and excellence which enables people to be able to fulfil their potential in their respective organisations, giving leadership at local level and trying to ensure that people work across as well as within organisations.

In the context of how we have delivered and promoted public service provision here, our system has emerged organically in a way that is not consistent in every respect as we deliver services. We need to recognise that. The OECD report and the task force on transforming public services provide an excellent context in which we can acknowledge the work is ongoing. The idea that there is absolute recalcitrance in the public service to change is not an accurate picture. One can point at many areas where the contrary is the case. However, it is clear that change is not delivered in a consistent way across the system. We know from experience that the management of change is also about people and about ensuring the leadership is there. We must give people the capacity and ability to proceed with change management programmes effectively and bring their organisations with them. There are good examples where that has happened. I already mentioned the Office of the Revenue Commissioners, an excellent example. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Social and Family Affairs have excellent welfare payment systems and have demonstrated an ability to take on technology transfer and to efficiently and effectively provide entitlements and services to people within 24 hours of the day of entitlement, for example, single farm payments. Their systems are as good as can be found anywhere in the European Union. The idea that this should be the exception rather than the rule is not the case. However, we must address all of the issues in a systematic way.

The Deputy asked what my view was of the public service. In our discussions with the public service unions, we have been able to give them, in addition to existing documentation, an indication of what we require in terms of restructuring, the use of modern procurement methods to save moneys, e-Government and redeployment. Redeployment is a critical factor, in particular the ability to redeploy people across the service to areas of critical need as the need arises. We have seen this in a different way in terms of how we responded to the emergency flood position over recent days. The response has been characterised by people's ability to collaborate, work together and work across the system and go to where they are needed. That is flexibility and people have been able to respond and get on with the work and overcome any issues of demarcation or other problems.

This is an intricate and complex industrial relations process. The idea that all this is simply handled and dealt with immediately with the consent of everyone available or on call is not correct. We need to recognise that and have a shared vision of the direction we want to take over the next few years. This will involve accelerated change and will involve people being prepared to reconfigure services from the way they are currently being delivered. This means changing how we do things. It means not doing the same things in the same organisations and institutions as previously. The process is about getting the most cost-effective and efficient way of delivering public services in whatever new structures that are required — some of which will involve mergers or abolition of authorities — and developing county structures and means of providing services. There are a number of ways and means by which this can be done, none exclusive of the other.

If we can find a way in which this can be agreed and to which people will commit and we get on with that and provide further savings, this will involve permanent structural change. It involves changing the way we do all of this. I believe the discussion process must ensure we do not just talk about what we need to do in 2010 in financial terms. The discussion is about how, given the limited resources available to the State — a changed situation from where we were — we will provide the basic services. It is about the priorities we are insisting upon, the aspects of services that will be eliminated and the aspects that will be dealt with by others. We must be prepared to look at all that. We must commit, as is the situation in Towards 2016 to which everyone is committed, to changing how we do things so that the citizen is at the centre of the issue and the service provider is in a position to provide the service as citizens require it as they go through life, in childhood, working, having families and old age. It must cater for how we handle people with disability and mainstream services for them. It is a more complex mosaic than people sometimes give to the debate.

I believe it is possible to achieve this in the right circumstances. The crisis situation we face today makes it an imperative for us to face the challenge comprehensively and in a collaborative way. We must do the business based on the excellent examples already available to us in the public service as to why change provides a much better prospect for better career fulfilment, a better workplace environment, a better way of delivering services and a far more fulfilling role for people than too many aspects of the services that are characterised by crisis management mode too often and perennially.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Taoiseach for his response. He would do himself a power of good if he, as Taoiseach and Head of Government, said he and the Governments he has served in got this wrong. I agree the structures of the public service have strangled initiative and strangled many of those who work above and beyond the call of duty. In respect of redeployment, which is critical, the Government task force recommended a common contract for public servants to enable redeployment to happen more quickly, so that people could be moved from Department to Department or section to section as their expertise or experience might require. Has that been a subject of discussion between the Government and the trade unions? Does the Taoiseach, as part of these discussions, intend to put on the table a proposal for a common contract to facilitate ease of movement of public servants?

Does the Taoiseach think it appropriate that any public servant should earn more than the Taoiseach of the day? Is this the Taoiseach's view on how rates of pay have increased at the higher levels of the public service and is this an issue in his view? The public have strong views on high levels of pay.

Can the Taoiseach provide the House with information as to the reduction in public service numbers as a result of the moratorium on recruitment? Can he provide information on the number of posts that have not been filled as a result of the moratorium? It is a crude instrument in many ways in that particularly critical posts may be left vacant and Ministers may lack the expert staff to provide information to them about questions which they may be required to answer. What has been the impact of the moratorium to date on public service recruitment?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not have that figure available to me. The objective of the moratorium on recruitment when introduced last year was to achieve a 3% saving on payroll costs. I will obtain those figures for the Deputy. In fact, the objective of the moratorium was met last year.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The figures regarding the common contract.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It would represent a saving of approximately €300 million.

The question of redeployment is critical for a simple reason. If one is aiming to change how services are delivered, it is clear there will be surplus staff as a result of the reconfiguration process. If a change is made in practices then it is a question of what to do with the staff in an organisation currently doing that work. Without a commitment to redeployment it is very difficult to have an effective and cost-effective change management process. An effective system of redeployment is needed in order to utilise the staff surplus created by the reconfiguration of services and by the adoption of e-Government and shared services, for example and to move staff to new centres of excellence.

In order to minimise the overall numbers required to deliver services at any time such a system has to operate smoothly so that staff can be deployed across organisational and sectoral boundaries. For example, surplus Civil Service staff in a particular location may, in terms of organisational needs and the available skills and distance, be more appropriately redeployed to the local government or health sector than to other Civil Service Departments or agencies. Many agencies are considering looking at their methods for delivering services and full co-operation with such reorganisation will be necessary. It would be essential that those being redeployed are not unfairly disadvantaged. Management would be empowered to require deployment under arrangements to be put in place in each sector. Where disputes arise as to redeployment, there will have to be a speedy and final method of resolution. Extremely flexible redeployment arrangements must be viewed as the corollary to arrangements that do not provide for compulsory redundancies.

A flexible redeployment model is necessary in order to avoid compulsory redundancy and to achieve a cost-effective outcome when making those changes. The question of common contractual arrangements is a detail to be dealt with in negotiation. As with any change management process, it is necessary to build confidence in the process and people must be brought along in order for the process to be effective. People need to buy into the process and to take ownership of what is being proposed in order for it to be effective. This does not mean that any one person has a veto on change because the financial realities are dictating what must be done. It is preferable to do so in a collaborative way and with everyone on board. This form of discussion and shared commitment is what we need to develop as part of the permanent structural change which is not only unavoidable but necessary.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach in his opening reply to Deputy Kenny said that the Department of Finance was to be the lead Department to oversee public service reform. If this is the case, there will be no reform. There may be cuts in the public service budget but it will not be reformed and I will give my reasons for this view. The Department of Finance has too much to do at the moment. It is already trying to manage the biggest budget crisis we have seen. It is dealing with the banks and on top of this, the Government is going to have it undertaking reform of the public service. The Department of Finance may know something about the number of beans to be counted in different areas of the public service but with the greatest of respect, it knows very little about the delivery of services in health, local government, education and the many other areas where service has to be delivered. With the greatest of respect I say the Department of Finance is the Department that brought us the recession. It could not oversee the bank regulation, could not get the budgetary figures right and the Taoiseach is now proposing to put it in charge of reforming the public service. This will not work. I suggest that if the Taoiseach is serious about public service reform, the first thing he will do is establish a separate and dedicated Department of public service reform, headed by a Minister charged with delivering that reform, otherwise we are not going to have reform.

I wish to ask the Taoiseach about the vision document to which he referred. He spoke at length about a vision for a better public service — a vision we would all share. I understand a vision document was presented to the trade unions at negotiations last Friday. I ask if this document will be placed in the Oireachtas Library so that we can all have access to it, rather than reading leaked portions of the document which periodically appear in the media. I am sure the Taoiseach will agree that the issue of public service reform is something that is of concern not just to those who deliver public services and those who govern them but also to those who consume them.

With regard to the talks, I have been saying for some months I believed it was possible to achieve a reduction in the public service pay bill by a negotiated agreement with the public service unions. I now see that the talks taking place would appear to be aiming in that direction and this is to be welcomed. I also heard Mr. Peter McLoone's public statement yesterday that his union and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions were prepared to talk to Government about reductions in the public service pay bill. Will the Taoiseach inform the House if, prior to yesterday's strike the Government was aware that this was the trade union position and if the Government was aware of this position, why did it allow the strike to take place yesterday? Another strike is threatened for Thursday 3 December. The Taoiseach will have noted that yesterday's strike was a pretty united solid effort across the public sector and it will happen again on 3 December unless an agreement is concluded. Can the Taoiseach give the House any assurances that an agreement will be concluded before 3 December in order to avert a second strike?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will deal with Deputy Gilmore's points. His first point was about the Department of Finance being exclusively responsible for the programme for reform of the public service. This is not a correct assumption. A Cabinet committee has been established of which I am the chairman and this committee is supported by a steering group of Secretaries General and the office for the programme for transforming the public service which is based in the Department of the Taoiseach. This office works closely with the Department of Finance which has responsibility for the public service. The Department deals with all industrial relations issues and with human resource issues and it has the expertise to do so. A second Secretary General post is in charge of that part of the Department. It is autonomous in respect of its agenda of public service interaction with the trade unions and staff representatives. This is where such expertise is concentrated. It is not a question of any one Department having exclusive responsibility as this situation requires a collaborative team effort across Departments as much as across the trade union movement and other organisations providing public services. That is my answer to the Deputy's first point.

Second, this discussion, the process of reform and a number of ongoing initiatives, outlined in the detailed reply I gave, should be viewed in the context of the comprehensive review under the auspices of the OECD, which has expertise in this area. It conducted a comparative analysis of how public services are delivered and the strengths and weakness of the Irish public service and a fair assessment was given by the organisation in this respect, which acknowledged areas where things are being done quite well in all the circumstances and areas where things could be improved. That is what one would expect to see in an organisation comprising 350,000 people providing services across a range of organisations, Departments and so on. Third, the task force was set up immediately in order that we could have a beginning, middle and end on how to proceed with this.

Fourth, we are in the process of achieving a full buy-in from everybody to proceed on this basis, in addition to what has been sought to be done in the absence of comprehensive agreement on a redeployment package. This aspect is necessary to achieve what is envisaged. We need to take practical steps and hard-nosed negotiations have to take place at local and institutional level, in our hospitals and in the education and other sectors. One has to get on with that business.

The discussions will build on the solid work in place, some of which is being proceeded with, as I outlined in my reply, and address the wider issues upon which there is not yet agreement and on which we need agreement if we are to do what has to be done. The financial realities dictate that we have to get on with this process and it is better to do in a collaborative and agreed way rather than taking other approaches, which get into the industrial relations process, etc.

The second question raised by the Deputy related to documentation. Let us remind ourselves of the basis of the current discussions. We have indicated what we believe is required to get a contribution from public pay and pensions to meet the immediate financial budgetary problem we have. The suggestion was made by the trade union movement that it believed other policy options are available to us that will achieve the savings. In the context of 2010, I am concentrating on getting those savings. I also believe that getting them on their own without a commitment to permanent structural change in the public service means we will come back to this issue again and again and, therefore, it is better to do it in a comprehensive way both in terms of the short-term requirement and what we will have to do in any event to get a public service in place that is fit for purpose and commensurate with the resources available from the taxpayer. That will involve a serious and accelerated organisational change programme across the service.

The discussions arose in that context and they are continuing. A request was made to the Government, as one of the parties to the discussions, to give a more succinct document, in addition to all the available documents, on the issues that would be required and to indicate the Government's ultimate objectives in these areas. That has been done. Until those talks are over, I do not want to take a unilateral decision on what I do with documents that are under discussion, as the Deputy will appreciate, having been a trade unknown negotiator in a previous life. He can take it the document is broadly consistent with the existing documentation, which has formed the basis of our approach to date, but until those discussions are concluded I am not free to decide on the floor of the House about those issues. I want the public service unions to reflect on that and the discussions are resuming today. Let them take place. We will know the outcome in the next week or so.

The Deputy asked why I did not stop the strike. I am not in a position to stop a strike but I am able to outline the Government's position. I await from the trade union side the full range of policy options that will meet the requirements of the situation as we have outlined them. That discussion resumes today. There has been a great deal of information sharing to explain what are the cost issues. That interaction with the Department of Finance and the public service would be the norm before people come forward with their full position in order that we are at least on the same page in terms of what certain initiatives may provide in the context of the figures, whatever about ultimately getting agreement. Let us all know what are the common facts at least. That is ongoing.

I have said I am open to looking at policy options if they help us get to where we need to be. I am also convinced we need permanent structural change going forward and we need a commitment to this. On that basis, we are having discussions. I cannot guarantee the Deputy an agreed outcome but everyone is acting in good faith. I accept everyone's bona fides and like any negotiation, it will be successfully concluded or otherwise, but we will make a serious effort because I am sure everyone is of the view that it is better to find an agreed basis to go forward.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

To some extent what the Taoiseach is saying now is what the Labour Party has been saying for months. We have advocated that rather than unilaterally imposing pay cuts across the board in the public sector, there should be a negotiated reduction in the public service pay bill and that the opportunity of that negotiation should be availed of to achieve reforms. I am glad the discussion on all of this has moved into that territory and I hope it will succeed. However, while I never believed the Taoiseach was in a position to wave a wand to call off strikes, he was in a position to advance the negotiations in order that strikes could be averted. That clearly was not done in advance of yesterday. The Taoiseach allowed yesterday's strike to take place. It appeared he wanted it take to place for whatever reason. In any event, it took place and we are facing another strike on 3 December. Is the Taoiseach confident he can conclude an agreement by that date to avert the strike?

With regard to the wider issue, I again come back to the question of whether the Taoiseach is serious about achieving public service reform. Clearly the Government and the Department of Finance are intent on reducing the bill but if they are serious about reform, they will start at the top. If there is to be reform of the public service, a process that is likely to take place over a protracted period, there needs to be a dedicated Department. The first reform that should take place is a reform at the top in order that a Department is dedicated to public service reform, as was the case for a period in the past.

The Taoiseach rightly said there will be complex issues such as redeployment. He mentioned the question of civil servants being redeployed to different sectors and agencies, which begs the questions as to whether there will be a redeployment process in reverse into the Civil Service. A range of organisational issues will require a separate Department with a separate ministerial head rather than putting it all into a Department that is overstretched as it is.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As I explained to the Deputy earlier, his characterisation of this matter being dealt with exclusively in the Department of Finance is not correct for the reasons I have given because we have set up, in line with the recommendations of the task force, a Cabinet committee and a steering group, which are working through those issues, as recommended by those who have advised the Government in this area. It is not correct to say that.

Second, setting up a separate Department will not solve the problem. I would have as great a need of a magic wand to do that as to stop strikes. We have had Departments with responsibility for the public service separate from the Department of Finance in the past. It was not found to be a panacea for public service reform on a major scale. In any event, it was tried in pre-partnership days. There must be a real and definitive commitment if these things are to happen. If a reform process is to succeed, there must be a timeline for arbitration and a commitment by everyone to accept the outcome of arbitration and move on. In the absence of that, process takes over and things churn on.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

And people go out on strike.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy made another incorrect comment.

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hear, hear.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He said I was, in some way, supportive of the strike. I am not interested in anyone withdrawing their labour.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach did very little to stop it.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy made a comment which is not correct. He said that was his view and his view is incorrect. That has never been my way of conducting discussions with anyone. I know what must be obtained and what the objective is. Everyone in this House has come around to the view that the adjustment to be made is of the order of €4 billion. While the trade union movement has set out its view regarding the time needed for an adjustment to be made, as it is entitled to do, there is an understanding and acceptance, in the context of these discussions, that the €4 billion figure is the one we must deal with for 2010. People may reserve their positions on that but we must proceed if we are to arrive at outcomes. That was part of a previous discussion. The sharing of information was another part of that discussion.

No one has committed to anything. Everyone is acting in good faith. I must now see the specific proposals which the trade unions believe can provide an outcome to which the Government can subscribe. I accept that people are acting in good faith in this regard. That process is occurring now.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach has a week before the next strike.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Gilmore's third point was with regard to the possibility of another strike. I will deal with these issues on their objective merits and not on the basis of the prospect of a strike next week or some other week. I am not interested in people going on strike. I do not believe it is the right approach. I am in discussions at present. What should the prospect of a strike convey to me as I take part in those discussions? Should the Government change its view and move away from the objective merits of what we believe is necessary in the national interest? Decisions being taken by others based on how they view the situation are a matter for them and should be taken up with them. I am engaged in talks and interested in finding a solution, but it must be one that fits with overall budgetary requirements. I will listen to any views which help me obtain that outcome. I cannot make decisions on the basis of another problem arising on 3 December.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Besides, the budget is on 9 December.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am in the business of trying to find a solution. If others are contemplating other actions, that must be taken up with them. I am not responsible for their positions.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach has a responsibility to engage with the electorate.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My position is to engage on the basis of a substantive outcome consistent with the Government's outline of requirements for 2010 and its commitment to permanent structural change beyond that.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach stressed the importance of career and personal fulfilment among those working in the public service. Are there recent measures of morale in the public service or are there plans to carry out such measures? Are there recent measures of customer satisfaction among the citizens who engage with the public service?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In any relationship between an employer and employee, there are responsibilities, which the vast majority of people seek to discharge. Being employed, whether in the public or private sector, one gives one's best every day on the basis of the remuneration one receives. That is an objective of everyone who goes to work. We must make sure that we have an organisational structure which enables people to find that fulfilling role, consistent with their professional standards and recognising that employers' capacity to pay has been greatly affected by the economic crisis, which is not unique to this country but has arisen in every country in the developed world. That requires us to look at things afresh and find a way forward which makes sure that a contribution is made by that sector, as by everyone else.

I acknowledge the contribution that has already been made. I freely acknowledge that, despite my best efforts at the time, there was a requirement to impose a pension levy, which affects people's take-home pay. There is no want of trying to find agreement but the agreement must be consistent with what we need to do. People in many sectors of society believe we must get on with that process. I believe we can do it collaboratively and in a constructive way if we can find the means to work through the issues which face us. I hope that is the case. I believe it is a better way to do business.

I have had the honour of holding ministerial office in a number of Departments. I always sought to be open and straight with people, whether staff representatives or anyone else. None of us would have chosen to be in this situation but we are here and we must confront it and deal with it. In the past, I was Minister when strikes took place in my sector. I never sought, as was suggested, to try to organise a strike. It is not an intelligent way to proceed. I am not in the business of putting us into that position but sometimes the process we have put in place and its failure to find agreement can lead to that outcome. No one, on any side, seeks a strike. I do not suggest that anyone on the other side of the negotiation table is seeking a strike. However, sometimes one occurs. I can only continue to put the position of taxpayers in general, as a Government in the current financial and budgetary situation. I must do that in as fair a way as possible, recognising that there are decisions which the Government must contemplate and execute which it would not normally like to make.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I asked about morale levels and the measurement of them. I am waiting for a response.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Morale levels are a function of how an organisation is operated and managed. In many organisations one finds very high morale in recessionary times. There are other organisations where it might not be so high. Morale is a function of management and staff working together to make sure morale is high.

There is important work to be done. There are difficulties and issues to be resolved in an industrial relations context. That does not mean people do not do an honest job for an honest day's pay. That is my experience of the vast majority of people I have dealt with, whether in the public or private sectors.