Derek McDowell (Labour)

I cannot allow that comment to go without some sort of rebuttal. The State has a dual role. We must consider this matter from the point of view of the employers. This proposal would unilaterally change the terms of employment for future employees. As the employer of civil servants, the State must ensure that the Civil Service continues to provide the best possible service and that those employed, sometimes for 30 or 40 years, have terms of service over which we are willing to stand.

Under the terms of the Strategic Management Initiative, there has been much discussion in recent years about lifetime balance. I believe there are advertisements on the radio as we speak about lifetime balance, which is clearly geared at introducing greater flexibility by allowing people to take career breaks, for example to look after their children for ten years and then return. The argument being made from this side is that all of that would be set at nought if we introduce a serious disincentive for people to leave the service and subsequently return. This would be the result of insisting they would have to remain at work for five or ten years after they would have chosen to leave.

It is not unreasonable for us to point out a clear inconsistency in Government policy. Benchmarking was originally proposed to find a way to prevent the leakage from the Civil Service we have seen in recent years. It was acknowledged that public servants had fallen behind in terms of their remuneration and conditions of employment. There was a recognition that we needed to re-balance. That is what benchmarking was all about. However, we are now throwing into the mix a disincentive for people who want more flexible working arrangements. It is reasonable for those on this side of the House to make the point that the disincentive should not be there.