Category: public sector

Taoiseach forgets he’s in the driving seat

9th November 2009

I am afraid it is not credible to say that by his statement at the weekend the Taoiseach has got himself into the driving seat. The Taoiseach has been in the driving seat for 18 months in this country.

Prior to that, he was in the seat beside the driver as he was in the Department of Finance for an extended period. I am not prepared to go along with the notion that the Taoiseach now has credibility on public sector reform. He just does not have that credibility. There is a cabinet sub-committee that is supposed to be meeting on this issue for the last year and a half, but the Taoiseach could not even answer the question yesterday on whether that committee had met. I understood from his response that it has not met. It is no use saying the Taoiseach has now put himself into the driving seat. The Taoiseach has had every opportunity for 18 months and more to address these issues, but he has failed to do so, along with his Government.

It is perfectly legitimate for people to criticise the public service and to call for reform, as I have. The problem is that the debate has become suffused with anecdote, prejudice and worse. Everybody has their story about the public service and what should happen. However, the Government gets to do more than what we get to do, which is to come in here and call for things to happen. It is ludicrous for RTE to report the Taoiseach as “calling” for public service reform. That is what we do in here. We call for things but unfortunately we have little or no power to deliver them. The Taoiseach does not get to call for things. He gets to do things. That is why he is the Taoiseach.

We should forget about calling for things and expressing wishes. Let us have a balanced review of the problems that exist and of the issues in the public service that require reform. That can be done in a relatively short period. Let us then have some action on the issue. People who are marching on the streets are being told they are the problem, but they are not the problem. Cuts do not amount to reform. If people are serious about reform, let us have a balanced assessment on what needs to be done and then let us have some action.

More :: Cowen calls for ‘fundamental reform’: RTE

Union members perfectly entitled to protest

4th November 2009

In respect of the day of protest scheduled for this Friday and the general issues pertaining to the trade union response to events, members of trade unions are perfectly entitled to take a day of action and to protest on the streets of their capital city. Not only are they so entitled but they are perfectly justified in so doing. Every time one makes a point about, for example, NAMA or some other issue pertaining to the economy, Members on the Government side ask, perhaps justifiably, what is one’s alternative. Practically five minutes into a discussion on the subject, the refrain from Members on the other side is what is one’s alternative.

I ask those who criticise trade union members who are taking to the streets and considering industrial action what alternative do they propose. What alternative do they propose to people who can see their living standards have dropped and who can see no real stake in the future? The problem people have is there is no clarity and they can see absolutely no stake into the future regarding how these issues should be dealt with in budgetary terms. What alternative is proposed by those people who fill the airwaves with criticisms of trade unions being lunatics and everything else?

Is ‘Social Partnership’ a misnomer?

22nd October 2009

I am extremely disappointed that the Government appears to have lost out on the opportunity afforded to it when its representatives met the social partners - I believe they are still referred to in this way but the title may now be something of a misnomer - to engage in any real or meaningful discussion, particularly with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. The Government’s current line is, “We have to do what we have to do.” Such an approach does not provide a basis for seeking consensus across society in respect of the difficult situation we face and the undoubtedly serious measures that must be taken.

It is simply not good enough that the Government puts out three figures as comprising the €4 billion in savings that need to be made and then announces that this is the way it must be. There will be no consensus in respect of, buy-in to or support across society for this type of dictatorial approach with regard to what is going to happen in the next couple of months. I have appealed to the Leader of the Seanad to do what he can, however minimal that might be, to persuade the Government and the Minister for Finance not to take this kind of approach or attitude towards the former social partners. I also urged the Leader to convince the Minister for Finance to use the opportunity that will present itself in the coming weeks to enter discussions with the trade union movement and put it up to its members to contemplate those areas - be they in the public service or elsewhere - where radical change must occur and invite them to come forward with proposals. I do not know if that is the basis on which the Government wishes to have the discussion on this matter. However, simply announcing a position at this stage will not work.

Pay deal or no pay deal?

4th December 2008

What is the Government’s position on the pay freeze contained in the recently agreed wage agreement? The trade union leaders appeared to glean from what the Taoiseach said in the Dáil yesterday that the matter should be re-opened. When the Taoiseach returned from Berlin last night he indicated that he did not propose to re-open the matter. Senator Boyle, presumably on behalf of the Green Party component of the Government, said that the 11-month pay freeze should be extended beyond August of next year. What in fact is the Government position?

There is a strong argument to be made that in agreeing the pay deal in September, the Government acted precipitously and it should have waited until the budget statement was made and the true position on the public finances was known. A very compelling argument can be had as to why it entered into that deal at the time. However, having entered into it, the credibility of the Government and all the social partners is greatly undermined by these suggestions that it might be re-opened eight or nine months prior to its actual implementation, in August of next year.

Collapse in State revenue was well underway before international banking crisis

27th November 2008

I was struck by the following curious point in regard to the reports today about the banks. A new group of investors have offered the Minister for Finance a solution to the problem. Last week, another group of opportunists, investors with international connections, offered a solution to the Minister for Finance. A picture comes to mind of the Minister for Finance sitting in his office, tapping his fingers on the desk almost waiting for people to come to him with suggestions. Surely, it should be the Minister who makes such bold moves. I do not agree that there is not a requirement for recapitalisation of the banks. Manifestly, there is such a requirement. There needs to be a debate on how it should be brought about and on the controls that should be put in place by Government in that regard.

I would like to hear from the Minister for Finance what he and the Government proposes to do other than waiting for others to come to them with suggestions. This seems to be the manner in which Government is being run in regard to these serious issues. The Taoiseach, when Minister for Finance, made a reasonably thoughtful speech a year ago at the Indecon conference.

I wonder if he would take out that speech, dust it down and read it again to see what it is he would propose by way of addressing the palpable sense of not alone uncertainty but real fear, which is increasing by the day and almost by the hour, across the community. Everybody is seeking a solution to the problem. We accept the Government cannot solve every problem. However, we are looking to it for some measure of inspiration and hope and for a plan, but we are not seeing anything of that nature. The budget was botched and there is a failure to face up to many of the problems that led us to where we are now. One cannot work out one’s future course until one is clear about how one arrived at where one is. We must face up to rather than dwell on the fundamental mistakes of recent years.

The extraordinary, treacherous and reckless priming of the property sector happened under the watch of this Government and this must be faced up to. Decentralisation - it appears it will be reversed in the public service reform document - was a serious mistake and a shocking proposal, one that ought never have been brought forward. We are now seeing it being at least partly reversed in the new proposals on efficiency in the public service.

The collapse in State revenue in this country was well underway before the international banking crisis emerged. That is a fact, not an opinion. We must face up to these facts and have a proper debate on them. I respectfully suggest that the Seanad is a good place to have that debate, a somewhat more relaxed and thoughtful debate than is possible in the other House.

More :: After the opposition’s repeated calls, it has just been announced that there will be an all-day debate in the Seanad on the state of the economy with the Minister for Finance present. It will take place on Friday 5 December.

‘Public service reform’ is a fantastic phrase - but what does it mean?

26th November 2008

Are we wasting our breath asking the Leader of the Seanad to arrange a debate on the economy? We keep doing so but, as a child might say, “It keeps not happening.” Is there any point in our seeking it?

I have just come from addressing a group of school students on the south side of the city. They all want to talk about the economy and the recession and what Governments and politicians are doing about it, yet we cannot have a debate thereon in the House. We were supposed to have a rolling debate? What is a rolling debate? In any event, it is what we were promised two or three weeks ago. It certainly has not started rolling yet.

Today the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance are to announce a programme of significant public sector reform. I welcome the programme for two reasons, the first of which is that no reasonable person could object to a serious programme of reform in the public sector. The second reason I welcome it is that I hope it will put an end to the phoney debate on the public service.

Very often people make statements about the public service that are long on rhetoric and short on specifics. This will give us the opportunity and will provide the context for Members on both sides of the House to explain what they mean by public service reform. Public service reform is a fantastic phrase, like motherhood and apple pie. What do people mean by it? Where do they wish to see the cuts and the redundancies? Do they wish to see redundancies?

We might consider any particular service that is provided for the people. In the Seanad, Members are constantly calling for improvements and expansions to services and opposing the abolition of different agencies and services. As politicians, we must face up to the fact that if staff numbers are reduced efficiencies can, of course, be brought about and it is good that such might be done. However, very often, when staff is reduced the service is reduced. It is not as simple as that but that is very often the outcome. Fewer staff means a service that is not as good for the public. Let us face up to that and let us all, on both sides of the House, face up to the fact that it is not good enough to come in here and make rhetorical snipes at the public service and public servants without being specific, by which I mean giving examples.

I welcome another aspect of the announcement that apparently will be made today, namely, that the Government feels it must take time to see which posts can be amalgamated, which ones should be abolished and, as a consequence, which services must be removed. It will take time. In the event of such a debate, I call on all my colleagues to be specific about what they mean, to be clear and to face up to the fact that if staff numbers are reduced very often service is lost.

12