Alex White (Labour)

There has never been a time, good or bad, when there has not been a debate on the need for reform in the public service. I do not make this point because I want to diminish the importance of this debate and achieving real reform in the public service. However, it is interesting to note that it is a constant dynamic in public debate and discussion. As we approach the budget, people are free to say what they wish, but I hope they will not contribute unwittingly to the re-emergence of a period of paralysis such as we had last year concerning the public and private sectors. I refer not only to the Government side but to commentators, Members of this House and others, to questions put about what workers in the public sector were getting that workers in the private sector were not, and to all of the other arguments that led to the creation of a toxic atmosphere, especially during the debates which took place this time last year about what needed to be done.

I do not wish to diminish the necessity for reform in the public service because, as has been demonstrated, there is a clear need for such reform. The OECD report in 2008 gave us a lot on which to chew regarding various steps that needed to be taken. There were a number of positive points made in that report about the public service. It pointed to the progress that had been made in areas that required reform, dating back to the 1990s, if I am not mistaken. One of its highlighted conclusions - I speak from memory - was that while many of the reforms were internal and process-led, there was a need to look outwards to allow a much more citizen or customer focused approach, with which I absolutely agree. No one could disagree with this, as it is essential. It might mean there would be fewer public servants; it will certainly require more flexibility and transferability across services. It might require or call for fewer agencies in order that core services might be reintegrated and provided from within the public service. There are proposed changes that would impact on individual members of the service. That is the case and it would be wrong for anyone in this House or anywhere else to think public servants are not aware change is needed and coming.

At the end of his contribution I heard Senator Dearey's speak about solidarity between the public and private sectors. In going about their daily work in their constituencies and attending meetings politicians meet many from both sectors. The most discerning - I hesitate to use the word "intelligent" because that implies one is looking down on others - and thoughtful people in the public and private sectors can see the value of and necessity for both sectors. One talks to private sector employers who require services such as public transport, child care and health services for their workers as part of any modern economy. They recognise the importance of having a vibrant and proper public service. Equally, workers in the public service will say, "We know we are nothing without the private sector. We cannot self-fund. Without a dynamic economy and private sector there would be no money to fund the public service." These points sound basic and are almost truisms, but sometimes we must remind ourselves. People understand the story and know change is necessary.

There is a problem. I refer to what the Minister of State said. I realise we are having this debate in an atmosphere where people are committed to progressing the issue rather than looking backwards.

One of the advantages of the Croke Park agreement is that we move a step forward from those speeches on the need for reform, and all the stuff about the "fat cats". People say they have no problem with those in the frontline, the nurses, gardaí, prison officers etc. that are needed. However, it is that other block of people that are invoked in their thousands as wasters or for low productivity which is the problem. I should like to see somewhat more specificity in this. Who are these people and where are they? How come Governments of all hues have not been able to find them in 20 or 25 years? What are they all doing and where have those people on their big salaries who do nothing been hiding?

I believe the Minister of State will agree that it is not as simple as that, to simply shunt those people out because there is deadwood around the place for all these years. It is not like that at all. The way people's talents are used or marshalled, the manner in which they are involved in their work and sometimes the fact that people need to be encouraged to work harder are all issues that have to be addressed. The Minister of State will acknowledge that it is something of a slog really. One has to ask how we are going to change this office or agency, who is going to work differently next week and how we are going to manage this better. One has to go through it, almost line by line, office by office, service by service etc.

If it is a big area and a decision is not needed at all, that is easy to resolve, but I do not believe there are many examples such as that at this stage. We are down to nitty-gritty stuff in the individual Departments and agencies. The advantage of the Croke Park agreement is that it opens the possibility for the heavy lifting to be done finally. Lets move away from the rhetoric about the need for reform, the "fat cats" and low productivity. Let us have it out now and put it up to everyone involved including the public service unions. Let us see where and how this can be done in the best interests of the country, public and private.

Public sector workers are voters as well. They have an entitlement to be involved in public debate and public discourse. I disagree respectfully with what Senator Harris said: no election is about who will stand up to the public service or public sector workers. That is a gross simplification and it is not about that. No election is, or should be, about that. It will be about many of the issues he talked about. There should be issues in the election, but please do not characterise it in terms of who will take on those people who, apparently, are single-handedly holding the country back. That is no way to look at this.

The Minister of State has resisted today, but on other occasions he has had a crack as regards what position the Labour Party took in relation to the Croke Park agreement.