Frances Fitzgerald (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister of State. The debate is overdue because there has been much concern about the implementation of the Croke Park agreement. There has not been much discussion about how the current budgetary, financial and fiscal situation will have an impact on what was agreed. The Minister of State referred to the budget, saying it will have an impact on what was agreed in the Croke Park agreement. That is inevitable. This is the beginning of a discussion on the Croke Park agreement and the Minister of State will return to the House. I will put some questions to which, on his return or later today, the Minister of State can respond.

The type of public sector reform we are talking about under the Croke Park agreement is not an optional extra. It is integral to the future of our country. It is integral to getting the budget right and delivering services for our citizens. Budgetary and efficiency issues underlie the agreement. Ireland has been very slow with public sector reform. The debate has been dogged by the perception that it is an attack on public servants. I worked in the frontline as a social worker for many years. I saw at first hand, as many other Members have seen, the key work done by those frontline staff in social welfare and education. Delivering public services is a tough task. Many people are leaving teaching and social work and retreating because of how tough it is. In framing this debate, it is important that public sector reform is not seen as an attack on frontline staff, as it has been seen in the past. The debate has been dogged by that approach and we must shift from it.

There is no doubt we have a public sector and a public service in dire need of reform. That is not a reflection on those who work in it but an historic fact. We are slow to bring about change. Other countries have dealt with this. Sweden managed a 11% reduction in costs by taking its proactive, serious approach to public sector reform. There will be major budgetary gains if we do this properly, without diminishing the service.

We have a top heavy system that we must change if we are to deliver services properly. I met a woman the other day who was trying to get a grant for a disabled child. She was sending in her third lot of forms as the first two had been lost. That happens to people all the time. There are incredible delays and inefficiencies in basic services. That may seem irrelevant to the Croke Park agreement but it is at the heart of it. I welcome the fact that the Government and public sector unions got together and came up with the agreement but key questions arise in terms of the current state of play.

I refer to The Irish Times today:

Last July, in a letter to trade union leaders and public service managers,. PJ Fitzpatrick, chairman of the body charged with implementing the Croke Park agreement, argued that it was important to deliver "quick wins" in improved public services and verifiable savings, in order to boost confidence in the deal. Although the agreement was negotiated early in the year, however, and ratified by the public service unions during the summer, the delay in securing any of the reforms set out has given ammunition to critics of the deal.

That is true. In his speech the Minister of State has addressed to some degree the reason for the Departments being late in responding. They were given a deadline. Why did they not respond? What was the reason for the delay? The Minister of State hinted that some of the reforms might have been considered under any other business, AOB, or that they were sidelined to some extent, although he accepted they are central. I agree with him. The reforms are absolutely central if we are to get the kind of changes envisaged in terms of better public services which are at the heart of the deal. That is the reason we have the deal. We must please the workers, ensure they are getting job satisfaction and are being paid adequately. One could ask why public servants are employed. They are there to give a service to the public. That is the goal of the changes. The agreement is about efficiency, effectiveness and providing a service. We must sell the reform envisaged in the Croke Park deal as being about service to the community. That is what it is about - service and efficiency.

Fine Gael supported the agreement. We were eager to see an agreement in place that would protect the well-being of those working in public services to ensure the necessary and long-awaited reforms needed in the delivery of services. That is critical. That is what I have been speaking about. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, has told the people to brace themselves for cutbacks in pensions and social welfare. He has said that everything is on the table. Nothing is sacred. Nothing is secure. My question is which parts of the Croke Park deal are on the table? Is the pay deal on the table again, given that we have had a statement from the Minister to the effect that everything is on the table, nothing is sacred and nothing is secure? Does the Minister of State, Deputy Calleary, have a clear comment to make on the issue or do we need to read between the lines of his speech? It is important for him to comment in so far as he can address the issue today. We have a deteriorating economic situation and a budget strategy is needed to deal with that.

What is the Government's approach to the Croke Park deal right now? Where exactly is the implementation plan for the agreement? Why has progress been so slow in many areas and non-existent in others? What has been going on? For example, last week the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, said that if progress was not made on the implementation of the deal soon, it was likely to be scrapped. Who was he speaking for? Expressing such opinions in a newspaper column is no way to communicate with the thousands of people in the public sector. I am sure the Minister of State would agree with me on that. I have spoken about those working in front-line services. Those updates should be given in this House and in the Dáil. That is why we are having the discussion today. Those are key issues. The message that type of article gives out is not helpful to the thousands working in the public sector. I am not sure either that it is helpful to the implementation of the deal.

The Minister of State, Deputy Calleary, has responsibility in this area. Does he share the views of the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan? How conditional is the Croke Park agreement at the moment? Is it conditional on progress being made? Where precisely does progress stand at the moment? As the Minister of State is aware, there is a get-out clause in the agreement. Is the comment of the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, a warning? Is it a caveat for the get-out clause? What would need to happen for the get-out clause to be used? What level does the economic and budgetary situation have to reach before the get-out clause is used? Is that something which is on the Government agenda at the moment?

I refer the Minister of State to article 1.28 of the agreement. It deals with the unforeseen budgetary deterioration. That is the reality. When one reads the agreement there is a lot of good detail but there is an awful lot of idealistic comment as well. In the health section alone there is reference to getting more community care services into place and more front-line services. I know and everyone in this House knows that care services at community level are deteriorating dramatically. The agreement is aspirational in many ways. That is why we need to begin to discuss - not today because this is a scene-setting kind of discussion to see where exactly things are at - the implementation of the agreement Department by Department to see what the reality is compared with the goals that should be reached, albeit that they are idealistic in many ways.

Article 1.6 of the agreement provides for a review of public service pay next spring. Could the Minister of State outline the mechanism by which that will take place? For example, will the savings generated by reforms go back to staff in terms of pay, as was envisaged at one point and, if not, where is it envisaged the money will be used?

I also wish to inquire of the Minister of State about the flexible redeployment of staff within the public sector as per article 1.7. Last week the Minister for Finance said there had been little success in that regard. Could the Minister of State provide the House with an update on the redeployment agenda, perhaps not today but on another occasion? What has happened in that regard? Redeployment is a critical part of the deal.

The deal also refers to voluntary redundancies and incentivised retirement schemes. We need an update on how much progress has been made on them. Last month the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, told the Dáil there were still no proposals before Government in that regard. It would seem to be unfair to place all the blame for lack of progress on the employees when the Government itself has been slow to develop proposals for measures agreed in the Croke Park deal.

The agreement envisaged the production of plans on transforming the delivery of services from each public sector and Department. Am I correct in saying that only one such action plan has come in or did the Minister of State say they are all in?