Seanad debates
Wednesday, 29 June 2011
Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill 2011: Committee Stage
3:00 am
David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Senator Barrett asked earlier if this is really a new Department which will bring about the type of reforms we all want or if it is but an extension of the Department of Finance. I mentioned earlier that approximately two-thirds of staff in this Department will be staff moving over from the Department of Finance. The Secretary-General of the new Department has worked in the Department of Finance since 1993. The Minister for Finance will continue to advise the new Department on the apportionment of current and capital expenditure. Some of the functions which will be transferred to the Minister for public expenditure and reform, Deputy Howlin, may only be performed with the consent of the Minister for Finance. Again, there is real concern that this Department is but an extension of the Department of Finance, that it is not anything new and will not have the powers or autonomy to do what needs to be done.
I am sure I will disagree with the Minister when he brings forward proposals on public sector reform. However, I agree with the need to achieve savings in public spending, getting value for taxpayers money and ensuring we have high quality public services. We need a new Department with fresh thinking to ensure this is done. The more I listen to this debate - I listened to the debates on this in the Dáil - the more I am concerned that this Department will not have teeth or the autonomy it needs. If this Department is to be under the thumb of the Minister for or the Department of Finance then it is not new. Like my colleagues in Fianna Fáil, I fail to understand why this amendment cannot be accepted. It is not a big deal. This is a simple amendment which could be accepted by the Government. I do not accept Senator Bacik's argument in regard to what the Minister said about the website. The amendment is more specific in terms of what the Minister should do.
Senator Byrne spoke about the possibility of the timeframe being an issue. I fail to understand why this amendment cannot be accepted.
No comments