Madam, - Noel Whelan's opinion piece of September 27th on public sector numbers is just that - opinion.
It is crass and simplistic at that, and perpetuates the rabble-rousing fallacy promulgated by the (now thankfully defunct) PDs that taxation is a form of theft, the proceeds of which go to public servants who then sit around doing nothing.
This fallacy has dictated Government policy on public sector numbers since Charlie McCreevy's time and was responsible for a continued deterioration in public services at a time when we could afford to improve them. Furthermore, most of the money thus saved has gone into the pockets of those who had plenty of it already.
He quotes a few selective cases where numbers have risen and then, in effect, simply throws his hands in the air saying, "Surely this isn't right!" There is no comparison with other countries and there is an implicit assumption that, before these increases took place, we were doing fine, thank you very much, so that any additional staff must be surplus.
For example, he refers to the rise in local authority staff numbers in recent years and alludes to the fact (not disputed) that some services have been outsourced in that time. However, he fails to identify how much work has been outsourced, what staff savings could reasonably have been expected from this, and what new functions have been taken on by local authorities that require new staff (often with qualifications and experience not already found among local authority personnel).
All of these factors need to be taken into account before one can say that the increases were not warranted. It is more likely that the increases identified were not sufficient for what local authorities were being asked to do.
Equally, he refers to the number of new agencies created in recent years. However the prevailing ethos at the time favoured separation of functions, such as courts, prisons, etc, from the civil service structure and the bulk of the staff were, in fact, serving public servants, not new recruits.
That is not to say there is no inefficiency or that there are no lazy or incompetent public servants - I have seen both myself. However, the majority of the public servants I know - especially at the front-line rather than the managerial level - work incredibly hard against a background of chronic staff shortages.
A redundancy scheme might not be a bad thing in itself, but only as part of a reform strategy that does not start from the unproven assumption that overall numbers are too high. There may well be areas where staff savings could be made, but the savings are badly needed for expansion in other areas - not for putting into the pockets of private individuals. Care will have to be taken, also, that such a scheme does not lead to the loss of the more able and enterprising staff, leaving us with an even more debilitated public service.
I would welcome serious debate on these issues rather than the populist, trite piece we saw from Noel Whelan. - Yours, etc,
(Dr) COLMAN Ó CRIODÁIN,
Nyon,
Switzerland.