Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)

This is important legislation and important public service reform. It is clear that it has been thoroughly discussed and considered within the Department of Finance but also in consultation with the social partners. What we are being presented with is well thought out and considered legislation which has broad consensus.

I fully agree with the emphasis on retaining the achievements of impartiality, integrity, lack of bias and lack of interference with the public service, which goes back to the 1920s. It is vital to preserve and in this regard, section 13(1)(a) provides that the commission is to establish standards of probity, merit, equity, fairness and other principles as it considers appropriate to be followed in the public interest in the recruitment and selection of persons for positions in the Civil Service as a public service body. The importance of that cannot be emphasised too strongly or too often and not just from a moral or even a public interest point of view. International experience shows that if a country does not have integrity in its public service, it has negative economic and social consequences for the country concerned.

We should not kid ourselves that there are no dangers out there. From time to time all of us who are public representatives have been approached about people who are seeking appointments, whether it is in the Civil Service or the local service, and one has to explain to them that one is not allowed to canvass on their behalf and that if one even attempted to do it, it could do them serious harm; at very best it would have no effect. I have to say, however, that many members of the public do not believe that when they are told it. That emphasis is vital, and there is a strong provision in section 14 about improper interference with the recruitment process, which I support.

There is an ambiguity in section 15 in that it appears the offence is to obstruct an investigation into interference. It is not clear, from reading the legislation, whether the actual attempt to interfere with recruitment is an offence or merely that it is an offence to obstruct the investigation into it. I did not notice this point being discussed in the Dáil — perhaps it was — but it is an ambiguity I would like to see cleared up.

There was some debate, which I do not think we will re-engage in here, on suggestions or fears that special advisers could somehow be parachuted into the permanent Civil Service. That charge was convincingly refuted. In any case, even if there were an attempt to create a back door it simply would not wash because the permanent public and Civil Service would rightly resist any such attempt. I have been in both and I see it from both sides of the argument. Permanent civil servants are recruited through competition on merit while the qualifications of special advisers are known to the person who appoints them. It is right to keep that clear division and not to mix them up. It is a pity the Bill does not seek to limit or regulate the appointments of special advisers. Appointments are normally Cabinet decisions at the formation of each Government. However, the early 1990s, with an element of party patronage, saw a tendency to appoint too many advisers. This system has its merits but should be kept tight so as to ensure every ministerial office is not stuffed with large numbers of advisers.

Senator Higgins questioned the rationale behind the Bill. However, we live in a different economy where vacancies in the Civil Service arise with greater frequency than in the past. The fast turnover of staff in certain areas of employment makes it difficult for the Civil Service and Local Appointments Commission to keep up and have people ready to fill vacancies as they arise. This Bill imports more flexibility, under tight regulation, to allow Departments and State agencies to recruit directly.

The question of an overall Civil Service recruitment policy was not raised in the Minister of State's speech. Bans and embargoes that were employed during economically difficult times tended to be terribly inflexible and were crude instruments utterly unsuited to the situations of certain agencies. Some State agencies fully covered their costs through fees charged, but were nonetheless prevented from recruiting when they needed to do so.

Senator Higgins raised the decentralisation programme and I am interested to know how it will integrate with this new public service recruitment policy. Decentralisation under the programme for Government is justified on its own merits and will also further justify this Bill. Contrary to Senator Higgins, I believe the Government remains fully committed to the programme. It must be achieved by negotiation, discussion and consent, and not made compulsory. However, many commentators and politicians from the Dublin area believe that most power and wealth should be concentrated in the greater Dublin region. With modern technology, that is not necessary. These voices can at best be described as conservative and, at worst, reactionary. For example, on Report Stage in the Dáil, one Deputy claimed this Bill and the decentralisation programme as "the single greatest act of administrative and political vandalism undertaken by any Government in the past 50 years". He continued in words reminiscent of the fictional Prince Charles in Private Eye: "we are watching the destruction of one of the greatest institutions of the State, the Civil Service." I regard that as complete and utter conservative rubbish. Our great public service will adapt.

In the Department of Foreign Affairs, which I belonged to, civil servants are shifted from capital to capital around the world. Gardaí have to move at regular intervals. I admit that this can be problematic for young gardaí but it is a problem shared with married couples with children who may not be working in the same location. Everyone has to work these logistical difficulties out for themselves. I regret the negative attitude in principle to the decentralisation programme. The Member I earlier quoted is a former Taoiseach, for whom I have great respect and acknowledge his great contribution to Europe. However, he insisted that the European Veterinary Office be decentralised to a village in County Meath, while most working at the office were resistant to such a move. While he remained committed to European Union decentralisation to Grange in County Meath, he describes the Government's programme as an appalling act of vandalism and destruction of one of the great institutions of State. Can we have some consistency in criticisms of the programme? The Deputy, as Minister for Finance in the early 1980s, was responsible for cancelling two modest decentralisation programmes.

Many Fine Gael Deputies and Senators, including the parliamentary party chairman who comes from County Tipperary, are committed to the decentralisation. However, commentators tell us that it is a great idea in theory but not in practice. Is it right that up to 90% of all Irish air traffic goes through Dublin Airport? I have an open mind on Aer Rianta but should we not distribute economic activity more equitably around the State? Will Members of more leftward-looking parties agree that the redistribution of wealth is one of their fundamental ideas rather than the concentration of wealth in certain places? I look forward to hearing the Minister of State outline the relationship of this Bill to the decentralisation programme. It has benefits for both Dublin and the rest of the country. The Government should not abandon it, let alone dilute its commitment to it, just because of teething problems.