Mark Dearey (Green Party)

I remember the dark days of winter 2009 when discussions on the 12 days unpaid leave and so on broke down. The level of ill-will and distrust that existed at that time among those who had been negotiating with the Government and who thought they had an arrangement with it was palpable and it did not promise much success for the new year. I was absolutely delighted when I watched the process being reignited, a level of trust begin to be re-established and an agreement being concluded in the spring of this year. I saw it as a momentous occasion in which the public service agreed to some painful measures. Change is always painful but these were necessary measures. I paid due tribute at the time.

Recently when Mr. Kieran Mulvey addressed the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Innovation, he spoke about how the terms of implementation got off to a slow start. I believe he described the Croke Park agreement as taking the scenic route from April to June of this year, and he was probably right. It meant there was a fair degree of incredulity as to whether the deal could ever work.

I suspect some of the momentum in terms of reimagining the public service came from that period. I really liked what Senator Phelan said about reimagining the public service. In a way, it is not possible to deal with it in the Croke Park agreement. I want to read a passage from the agreement to demonstrate that while new procedures and work efficiencies can be generated, none of it really touched a chord, about which Senator Mary White spoke and to which Senator Phelan referred when he spoke about reimagining government. The agreement states:

In order to maximise productivity gains, both from how work is organised and from streamlining procedures, processes and systems to allow for shared service in e-government developments, a substantial commitment to the redesign of work processes will be necessary. The Parties will co-operate with the drive to reduce costs through organisational rationalisation and restructuring ... The aim is to minimise duplication of effort ... through the introduction of new technologies ... reuse data ... Inter-operability and standardisation of specifications and systems ... will be mandatory.

All of this is necessary. All of us who use the public service are aware of how many of these items need to be addressed urgently and they are being addressed.

I was very encouraged by the Minister of State's speech and his patent commitment to the Croke Park deal. I share that commitment and want to have the same confidence in it. The four year plan will make its implementation much more likely. The third quarter of 2011 is, effectively, a date with destiny because if the savings have not been generated by that date, cuts within the public service will have to be found to make up the difference. This will certainly focus minds and drive the change agenda.

The change agenda is detailed in the preliminary sentences of the Croke Park agreement. It is, however, a case of reimagining the public service, to borrow a phrase from Senator Phelan, which is very important. New ways of working and finance policies must be used. These may be found outside the terms of the agreement and perhaps the period following the next general election might be a time when much of the thinking will take place.

I regard the Croke Park agreement as being attendant to political reform. It is wise to learn from the trauma the country is experiencing and make changes. While I welcome much of what I heard from the Minister of State, there is a gathering of pace in implementation and dates such as the third quarter of 2011 will be crucial. While the four year plan will help to deliver the agenda, I do not see it generating the new public service the country needs, one that will borrow some of the passion and innovation by which the private sector lives or dies. Part of the reason might have to do with the fact that there are not too many consequences for failure.

Senator O'Toole spoke about reward for success and the bonus culture. I do not agree with him on that point with regard to the public service. If people are well rewarded for doing their job, that should be sufficient. The bonus culture has led to the most catastrophic failures in the private sector, the banks being the most obvious example. There need to be consequences for failure, but I do not see them. I would like to see a more passionate public service in the future.