Sean Barrett (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the House. While the document concentrates on economies on the side of elected representatives, I am mindful of the McLoughlin report and the efficiencies that are needed in the permanent government of the local authorities which it was judged would make possible savings of ¤511 million. On the last page of the Minister's report he cites ¤400 million. Is that ¤400 million in addition to the ¤511 million and can we look forward to a saving of ¤900 million or, at the most pessimistic interpretation, did approximately 20% of McLoughlin's recommendation disappear and did ¤511 million become ¤400 million? It is important that we do both if we can. The permanent government, that is, the senior civil service, has not borne its share of responsibility for what happened to this country between 2008 and 2010. The elected Government did and in the Lower House was reduced from 85 seats to 19 but they were not the only people responsible for what happened to the country. I worry sometimes that the same senior civil servants are advising this Government as advised the last. We must face up to the problems of the permanent government. It was not fit for purpose or adequate to its task.

Progress reports on the McLoughlin report should be submitted to this House. Reducing the Dáil by eight seats and doing away with some small local authorities does not tackle the problem that the whole edifice of government collapsed between 2008 and 2010 and a major task of this Government is to restore its credibility. The Watson criticism of the Department of Finance in particular, asks whether there were people there with enough qualifications. Do we have a modern government structure at the permanent level? One hears criticisms up and down the country that there are too many directors of services. McLoughlin said that there are ten surplus county managers, 50 surplus directors of services, that 170 should go from corporate joint administrative units, 50 from the other corporate sector, 225 middle management and senior replacement, 62 from the HR payroll and 15% of senior managers in Dublin and Cork. It is important that the House knows what the impact of those reductions would be and what progress we are making.

At the Kenmare conference a couple of years ago the county manager for Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, Owen Keegan, estimated that 1,778 management positions should go. He may have left out a category so that it could have been approximately 2,000. These are extremely highly paid posts. One of the criticisms made by the troika is that administrators at the top level in Ireland earn more than their opposite numbers in the countries with which we are trying to compete and indeed in the countries which we are trying to get to rescue us. Is there a need for a reverse benchmarking exercise?

We should implement the reform also on the administrative side because that is the permanent pensionable burden that remains. Does getting rid of some councillors, reducing the number from some hundreds to 62, apart from some travel expenses for going to meetings, really get the Minister the kind of reductions that implementing big reductions in corporate service staff and directors of services and getting rid of ten county managers would achieve? There is a belief outside the Houses that the reforms in the permanent government at local and national levels must take place if we ever leave the rescue plans and try to develop this economy. The permanent bureaucracy has to contribute to that.

The health sector, which grew out of local government, was very heavily criticised in the last EU review, published ten days ago, for its high cost base. Sheltered services sectors such as government and the professional services detract from our ability to operate internationally and to generate jobs and get unemployment down from 14% to the level of 4.8% which we had before. It is important that we see what is happening in permanent government but we should also consider local government level as well. What savings will there be from the transfer of many functions from local authorities to other agencies? There must be genuine savings. As the Minister is aware, fears have also been expressed that with early retirement programmes, which have been mooted again, what one gains on the swings one loses on the roundabouts. This has come up in discussion on the much-enhanced pensions Bill. Is local government being slimmed down at managerial level? One effect of the moratorium was that the numbers of outdoor staff went down far more rapidly than the number of people in management offices and this was not a welcome development. The number of outdoor staff went down by 13%, the number of directors went down by 7%, the number of clerical and administrative staff went down by 4% and the number of professional and technical staff went down by 3.7%. I have seen an illustration depicting a number of managers looking at a man digging a hole. They say they need to cut back and decide to sack the man who is actually doing some work and digging the hole. There is concern that there has been too much managerialism and too much growth of bureaucracy at local government level. I would be interested to hear from the Minister in his reply on the progress his is making in this area, because it may be more important than getting rid of small numbers of local councillors throughout the country.