Dan Boyle (Green Party)

The undertaking and publishing of an OECD report into public service reform is a very useful starting point for an important and necessary debate on the quality of Irish public service and the way forward. The report indicates that Irish public servants are persons of ability and commitment who, in the main, operate effectively. However, there are systemic faults within the public service that must be corrected. Such faults can be corrected only with an appropriate amount of political will and through what has been a highly effective social partnership system.

In addressing the issue of reform, we must deal with fundamental questions, one of which is whether the public service in Ireland is of an appropriate size. We do not have good templates surrounding us, given that the public sector in Northern Ireland accounts for 40% of the workforce, which is possibly an unreal comparison. An effective economy must have a proper balance between the private and public sectors, in the areas in which they are separate as well as the areas in which they interact. It is clear that we remain in a process of evolution in that regard.

Historically, the public sector represented a large proportion of our workforce, mainly because important infrastructural developments were not advanced by any bodies other than the State. There was an unwillingness, either through a lack of initiative or a reluctance to provide capital investment to bring about that initiative, in the private sector to do so. The early development of this State was largely brought about through an active public sector and a very inert private sector. That the Irish economy began to shed its agrarian past only in the 1960s meant we had a lot of catching up to do in terms of the lack of enterprise and entrepreneurialism in the Irish psyche.

That said, we still need an appropriate balance in terms of the numbers. I would accept that the number of people involved in the Irish public sector is probably too large but it is also the case that there are significant shortages in certain areas. We lack people of specialisms throughout the public service to provide the most effective performance. We must examine the areas where there is an over abundance of staff and consider retraining and redeploying them to fill in the gaps in the public service.

Political debate continues as to where we locate public servants and how we allow them to operate to ensure the public service operates to its maximum potential. I accept this is a legitimate debate but I do not intend to go into the issues in depth now. I will say, however, that the extent to which we do not hinder the public service by making unnecessary changes to location over short time periods and allow staff to focus on the job of work at hand, the more effective the public sector will be. Those criticisms are expressed clearly in the OECD report.

It would be to our benefit as a society and an economy if we managed to increase the level of interchangeability between the public and private sectors. The fact that many people spend all of their careers within the public sector and sometimes even within a narrow sector of the public service means we cannot use the full potential of such individuals, nor does it allow those individuals to be fully rounded in their ability to offer public service. There should be more people in the public service taking work experience breaks in the private sector, and vice versa. Given the criticism that some in the private sector make of the public service being an inherently bad thing, we might benefit from people from the private sector acting within the public service, thus getting a better sense of a model that is more about service to the public and less about profit making. That interchangeability does not exist in our system at present.

The OECD has indicated some fundamental reforms that must take place. In the current climate, in terms of the public resources available and how they will be allocated, a political debate might emerge regarding whether these are the best circumstances in which to implement many of the report's recommendations but I would argue that it probably is the best time. However, it must be done with great sensitivity and in the sense of partnership that has characterised all of the social partnership deals to date. It also must be recognised that the aim of reform is to bring about a better service and it should not be just a number cutting or budget pruning exercise.

We are talking here about people who provide vital services in our society. Such people cannot and must not be discarded in any way. The reform process is about finding the best use for their talents and abilities in order to meet the needs of the public service. Perhaps marrying public service reform with some of the commitment that already exists to delivering public services throughout our society that are not even properly economically recognised — for example, some of the ideas of the task force on active citizenship — would yield a public service that would suit this country in the 21st century.