Kathryn Reilly (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Fairness was supposed to be at the heart of the Government's democratic revolution or reform, but the rhetoric of reform has not amounted to much.

The promise of change might have been squandered. I come from the perspective of a young person. The emigration figures point to tens of thousands of young people who had to leave for economic reasons and for those same reasons they will probably be unable to return. Public services have been undermined through cut-backs and the loss of numbers within the public sector means that those who are still there are under severe pressure.

The sale of State assets is not a measure of reform. The Minister and I have tic-tacked on the matter previously, and my colleague in the other House has tic-tacked on it also. If we had examined the assets more closely we could have utilised them better for the benefit of citizens. Apprenticeship and management mentoring programmes could have been provided. Commercial semi-State CEOs could work directly with the Departments of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Education and Skills, and Social Protection as part of a jobs scheme. Filling State boards with political cronies does not amount to reform but I will not get into a debate on the issue. Reference was made to the Freedom of Information Bill, the Bill on whistleblowers and the regulation of lobbying Bill. There has not been any sense of urgency to bring some of those Bills to a conclusion and we have not yet seen the regulation of lobbying Bill.

The savaging of services to the young, the elderly and disabled has not been any kind of reform. I disagree that improving shared services, cloud computing and the limited introduction of the public services card is reform and it is a matter of concern that the Minister continues to refer to them as such. Such measures, and the introduction of Intreo offices, are due to modernisation rather than reform. Many of the achievements in the second progress report on the public service reform plan relate to modernisation as opposed to reform. Many of the reform measures relate to accounting which has meant fewer workers and those who still work have longer hours for less pay. I measure success in terms of reform of public services in another way. Access to basic services has decreased and waiting times have increased in many areas. Children must wait years before their needs are even assessed for counselling services, speech and language therapy and other fundamental supports. That has repercussions for access to other services. The lack of service provision will impact on educational attainment, yet there is no interaction between the Ministers for Education and Skills and Health. A co-ordinated response is required. The Minister, Deputy Howlin, could ensure they would engage in dialogue. That is an under-the-radar example of the crisis in the public service. We must improve social policy development and cross-departmental engagement across the public sector.

We must bring an end to the practice of political appointments which currently rides roughshod over standard mechanisms for appointments to State boards. Ministers still select those with whom they have a political relationship. It is irrelevant whether a former constituency manager has all the applicable skills for appointment to a board if he has not applied for the job. From the outset, such cases undermine the position of those appointed and that of the Government. Cronyism in all its guises must be rooted out in order for people to have confidence in public services and the public bodies they represent.

The Government must review its relationship with State agencies who deliver critical supports and services. I refer to the hands-off approach to oversight of the service providers. Reform should also harness the vast wealth of in-house expertise in the public sector. Infrastructure could come under the responsibility of a single agency by bringing together engineers and project managers who are currently dispersed across various agencies. Such an approach is worth consideration.

A nod to open government is insufficient. We need to see a real commitment on how data with a public interest is disseminated and how civil and public servants are trained and resourced to deal with requests.