Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I welcome from NIC-ICTU Gerry Murphy, assistant secretary general of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU). Gerry, please make an opening statement. Members, if you wish to ask a question of Gerry, indicate, as always.

Gerry Murphy (Irish Congress of Trade Unions): Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. Thank you all for your invitation to appear today. As the Chair pointed out, I am the assistant general secretary of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, which is the umbrella organisation for the trade union movement across the island. My role, however, is mainly to represent the movement in Northern Ireland, and it is in that capacity that I appear today.

NIPSA and the FDA — two trade unions that are affiliated with ICTU — have already appeared before you and offered their views on your inquiry into the performance and culture of the Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS). I hope that my contribution will further assist you in that work. In general terms, unsurprisingly, I agree with my NIPSA and FDA colleagues' contributions to the Committee, and I beg your indulgence, because there may be a certain amount of repetition in what I am about to say.

Over the past two decades, the NICS has endured in what has been, at times, a tumultuous and challenging environment. We had, in 2002, the introduction of the review of public administration. We then had the outworkings of a prolonged period of privatisation; a voluntary exit scheme (VES) in 2015-16; and the first Assembly collapse, which was followed by a series of less than successful restarts. We had the reorganisation of the Departments; the emergence of NICS HR Connect; the renewable heat incentive (RHI); another Assembly collapse; COVID; and the third of the hat-trick of Assembly collapses in the period. Towards the end of that litany of challenges, the working environment for our civil servants was complicated further by an unprecedented cost-of-living crisis, much of which we continue to endure, and, of course, over that entire period, we were plagued by budgetary cuts and fiscal uncertainty. With all that and a decline in salary values of approaching 20% for the same civil servants, staff morale took a huge hit, as my colleague Carmel Gates pointed out to you. That is only now beginning to improve.

The Northern Ireland Civil Service is vital to the effective functioning of government, our public services and the economy, as it provides the means to enable policy development and the pathways to the realisation of those policies. However, as I outlined, the capacity of the NICS to do so has been severely impacted on by the politics of this place and the fiscal policies that were developed, in large part, elsewhere. While the Civil Service across the entire UK has grown by 31% since 2016, the NICS has expanded by a whole 2% over the same period. We have a Civil Service that is understaffed. Indeed, the Audit Office report of 31 March 2025 indicated that there were 5,500 vacant posts. I heard Ian Snowden, the permanent secretary of the Department for the Economy, outline yesterday that, in his Department alone, there are 300 current vacancies and the budget to fill only 109, I think.

The fact that there are 5,500 vacant posts is even more striking when you consider that we expect so much more here from those same civil servants than is expected from their English, Scottish and Welsh counterparts. In addition to having functions such as social care, which councils in England, Scotland and Wales normally carry out, Northern Ireland civil servants have to deal with the further administrative fallout from, for example, post-Brexit arrangements. They have, of course, also been subject to investigation and interrogation by, amongst others, the Audit Office, a report from the Public Accounts Committee, the Pivotal think tank and a media that, at times, seem to have forgotten that civil servants act on the instructions of Ministers rather than determining themselves what has to be done. Indeed, it is impressive that we are not in a worse situation than that in which we currently find ourselves. Nevertheless, steps are being taken to bring about the necessary reforms and changes to address elements of the culture and structure of the Northern Ireland Civil Service that we can manage here, with a view to improving performance and accelerating progress across our public services, economy and society. I am nearly there, Chair.

The issues arising as a consequence of the disastrous voluntary exit scheme and the emergence of HR Connect have been highlighted to you by my colleagues in both NIPSA and the FDA. Movement to address those issues is in the final stages, with the development of Integr8, strategic workforce planning and the job families network. Importantly, those approaches will see the re-establishment of an in-house, largely centralised, HR management system. The staffing issues, inclusive of outstanding vacancies, the high numbers of agency staff who are employed on a temporary basis and the number of civil servants who are in temporary promoted posts, can now be addressed with greater efficiency. It is simply not acceptable that, in too many cases, appointments under HR Connect are taking close to a year to complete or that almost 20% of the workforce remains on temporary contracts. Some of those workers have been employed for years on those contracts, which, despite their longevity, remain insecure. While those civil servants who are in temporary promoted posts have demonstrated their worth in the roles in which they have found themselves, they will remain in limbo until becoming affirmed in those positions. As things stand, a lack of workforce planning is evident.

Identifying and appointing appropriate candidates for initial appointments and promotions, be they candidates originating from outside the Civil Service or those travelling along established internal promotion routes, should be easier with Integr8. In the context of greater control, informed by strategic workforce planning and the jobs families framework, staffing levels will stabilise and begin to grow to meet the demand in a focused manner, leading to, we hope, improved performance across the service.

Salary needs to be addressed. If we are to develop the Civil Service into the organisation that we, as service users, deserve, those civil servants need salaries that reflect the skills and capabilities that they bring to the table. Graduates who are recruited to meet capability and skills shortages and staff who are developed internally to do the same deserve salaries that match those of their colleagues in the private sector.

The development and evolution of policies in conjunction with the trade unions on sickness and absence, as well as conduct and discipline, is well under way. Those negotiations reflect the wider growth of a more collegiate culture across the Civil Service and can be viewed very positively. Trade union concerns regarding what are sometimes dissimilar interpretations of processes and procedures are now being considered, with greater levels of consistency in approach being developed. Movement in and between sections and Departments should also be easier with a centralised, in-house HR system that allows faster development of policy and enactment.

Those of us who work with the Civil Service appreciate the work that it does, even if sometimes we are frustrated by policy direction and what is at times a grindingly slow pace of policy emergence. I have direct experience over 30 years of work of virtually all the issues that I have highlighted to you, yet I believe that we are seeing a positive change being brought about. It will take more time and require additional resourcing, but it has momentum, and the trade union movement will do what it can to support it.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Thank you, Gerry. That was really helpful. Do not worry; compared with some of our witnesses, you were relatively concise, but that was useful. Members, as always, indicate should you wish to ask a question. I have a couple of particular points that I would like to pick up on, Gerry.

First, there is clearly a pattern of difficulty around managing vacancies. There is a debate about understaffing in and rightsizing of the Civil Service here, but no one would dispute that the vacancy level, the number of temporary promotions and the length of time that it takes to get people appointed is a problem. You might not have the data on this to hand; I know that your background is in the education union world. Could you give us a flavour, if you are able to now — if it comes in written evidence afterwards, that is grand — of how that pattern compares with other bits of the public sector? The private sector might be different, but taking a year to get somebody into post, given that that person may be in post for only two or three years, seems very problematic. From your experience, is that markedly slower than other bits of the public sector?

Mr Murphy: In the years leading up to COVID, particularly from 2015-16 up to the pandemic, I was in a different job. I was leading the Irish National Teachers' Organisation (INTO), which is the teachers' union. I saw that the voluntary exit scheme allowed a significant outflow of experience and talent. People who had put in a long time in particular departments went out. We found it particularly difficult in that period to deal with the fallout, which was that people were promoted who did not have the necessary levels of experience that we were used to dealing with.

The appointments process is under HR Connect. I am not an expert on that, but I listened to Carmel Gates's evidence, and I have spoken to Robert Murtagh of the FDA. I have also talked to other trade unions, because others are involved here; UNISON and Unite, in particular, have very large memberships.

It appears that the appointments process is particularly frustrating to everybody because of the length of time that it takes. In the last Committee meeting that I watched, Mr Kingston talked about one appointments process that lasted eight months. We are aware of examples taking eight months or slightly more, so it is quite clear that HR Connect is not functioning as it should.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Definitely. You mentioned voluntary redundancy, which has come up perennially. Did you experience that at INTO when you were engaging with people who subsequently took voluntary redundancy, which then weakened the organisation? Did it slow down delivery of negotiations, for example, or slow down your doing business with them in the world in which you were at that time?

Mr Murphy: Yes, we definitely experienced that. It coincided with a particularly difficult period of financial uncertainty, shall we say, and the various collapses of the institutions. The negotiations in Education at that stage passed from the hands of a very experienced team of people to people who had been operating at a number of grades below those with which we had been negotiating.

There was also the culture. The culture seemed to change as well, because it appeared that there was a growing reluctance to be as direct as we had been used to, and that was due to a mixture of inexperience and possibly the political backdrop in which those civil servants were operating. The short answer to your question is that we saw that very clearly.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): We have talked about HR and the staff performance part of it. Another part of it is — the two are interlinked, obviously — the performance of the Civil Service and how effectively it does its job. There is clearly a link between how well it is managed and how well people are incentivised and paid and all that. Do you think that the Civil Service here is too siloed? The observation is made very widely by people from different perspectives that, structurally, there is one empire here and another empire somewhere else and that, constitutionally, because of the way that the system is set up, civil servants are disincentivised from working across the organisation. ICTU is an example of an organisation that works across unions with people from completely different professional backgrounds and geographies to achieve common ends. However, it appears that, in the Civil Service, there is a struggle with that because one empire or silo is working with x Minister and on x policy priorities and another is working to a different set of policy priorities. Have you observed that?

Mr Murphy: Yes. Not only I have observed that, but it is a large part of the Pivotal analysis of the situation. Yes, the siloing is an issue. Speaking from personal experience, I can say that there are elements of the delivery of an education service that transcend Education. There are health considerations and youth justice considerations. All those require cooperation, and the siloing is very evident when you are trying to navigate that maze. By the way, the civil servants are not, by and large, to blame. The nature of the political settlement and the way in which it has evolved, if you like, lend themselves to making the delivery of services more difficult. We are also asking civil servants to find pathways and bridges between those silos. That is very obviously a problem, but it is not one of the Civil Service's making. It is one that is has to navigate, and doing that against all the issues that I outlined at the beginning of my submission is proving to be extremely challenging.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Fair enough. OK.

Ms Forsythe: Thanks very much, Gerry, for being here. The Civil Service is so big, broad and diverse. It does different types of work, and it has different levels as well. I wanted to ask about that wide nature of the Civil Service. You speak for a big block of it, but there, obviously, are specific units and different cultures. The inquiry is looking at the whole performance and culture, but one point that I have seen come through is that there are specific issues to do with certain Departments, types of work or grades of the organisation. Does that come through well enough at the appropriate forums, or can we recommend anything to improve that? A lot of what you have said is quite high-level and goes across the broad nature of the service. Given that it is so big, very specific issues sometimes get lost in that. As you said, HR Connect is maybe getting into the detail of those issues. I am keen to tease out what people are coming to you, as a union representative, about so that we can make some good recommendations.

Mr Murphy: I do not want to mislead you; people no longer come to me directly. I hear about some of the issues from the trade unions that are involved.

It appears that, again, until fairly recently, there was that inconsistency to which you refer, simply because the HR knowledge base and experience that existed prior to the emergence of HR Connect had been stripped out. As Carmel pointed out, she formerly negotiated with the heads from all the different Departments. That ceased to be the case, and that process became centralised. For example, the management of complaints on conduct and behaviour was further outsourced, if you like, to Capita, so the internal experience and management of issues became absent.

We are extremely hopeful, and our trade union colleagues are working very hard with senior Civil Service staff and those who are negotiating on their behalf on the people-first approach, which involves Integr8, strategic workforce planning and all that. My colleague Denise Crilly detailed some of the work that they are doing. I do not think that the problems will disappear entirely; they will not.

That workforce is the third largest chunk of our wider public sector, so we will always have issues presenting themselves. As a trade union movement, we want to see those issues being dealt with efficiently, quickly and fairly. We believe that what is emerging from Integr8 and that people-first approach will take us in that direction. There is already evidence of that, and we believe that it is taking us in that direction. It is also — this is important — promoting a return to a more collaborative culture not only across the Civil Service but with the trade union movement. That was reflected in my colleagues' evidence.

Ms Forsythe: Definitely. That very much came through in Carmel's evidence. I was not aware that those types of HR issues were lifted and outsourced to other people to manage, but all the while, there could be a number of issues with a staff member, including prolonged work-related stress and issues that are linked to bullying in the workplace.

It is concerning to think of complete strangers picking up something of a sensitive HR nature. It is my opinion that it is a person's line management and those with whom they work who understand the environment in which they work. It is good, therefore, to see movement back into that more collaborative, human way of managing things.

A lot of information and things have come through the Committee over a period of time that led to us having the inquiry, looking at temporary promotions, agency staff, bullying complaints and different types of sick leave. The data are not being analysed or talking to one another. The big move that is being made with Integr8 is to have all that data intertwined.

I am concerned, however, that we are moving in the direction of saying that Integr8 will have all the answers. We just want to make sure that we make clear, concise recommendations that reflect what the workforce is saying and what makes those things happen. If there is anything that the Committee can do to help that along, I would be keen that we grasp it. I see the intentions and I see that everybody is talking — the Committee was out at the offices of Integr8 and saw that — but it will take some time to get there. Are there any short, sharp recommendations that we could make? I would appreciate any input that you can provide, given that you speak to the people. What is the overriding input that would allow us to try to get moving quickly rather than relying on the system?

Mr Murphy: The most important thing is already under way. The word of the moment is "transform", and an organisation of the size of the NICS cannot be transformed if everybody has not bought in. It appears that everybody has now bought in, and that is the most important thing. If that could continue to be encouraged and promoted as being positive, not only would it assist with this matter, but we would have this transformation process to look forward to in Health, Education and other places. If, on the back of two decades of turmoil, we are now seeing, in effect, the emergence of a new way forward for collaborative working, that should be seized. Resourcing will always be an issue. Political circumstances will change, but it is vital that the collaborative approach is maintained.

Ms Forsythe: That is brilliant. I think that, as you said, everybody has bought into transformation, but we need people not to be concerned about what the language means; we just want to see things working better, people communicating better and things being delivered more efficiently. That does not mean cutting back staff or anything like that. People are quick to move on to that train of thought, but "transformation" just means doing things better. Hopefully working together will come through as a good, strong recommendation in the review. Thank you, Gerry.

Miss Dolan: Thank you for coming in today, Gerry; it is good to see you again. The last time I saw you was at the 'good jobs' employment rights Bill protest at the steps of the Building. Challenges have been highlighted with performance, culture and morale in the Civil Service. How could the 'good jobs' Bill improve the situation? How could it help to drive improvements in performance and culture in the Civil Service.

Mr Murphy: The trade union voice is fundamental to the 'good jobs' Bill. The Civil Service points to an example of where that voice is being listened to — not entirely, but by and large. It is a good example of what can happen when trade unions are encouraged to share their views and work with management — I say "management" in inverted commas — to get things done. My colleagues Carmel and Denise as well, indeed, as Robert, were quick to point to that. They may not have said it directly, but what they were saying, indirectly, was that collaboration between themselves and the management of the Northern Ireland Civil Service was bringing about changes that were impacting positively on their members and leading to improved performance across the piece.

Fundamentally, we all seek to improve the conditions for the people whom I represent and give them a greater say in how the workplace is managed and allow space for them to contribute to more effective working. The 'good jobs' Bill opens up the potential in a lot more workplaces, and it should be encouraged.

Miss Dolan: What is your assessment of the impact that the current culture of the Civil Service has had on staff morale?

Mr Murphy: The issues that I listed at the beginning of the session remain in play; financial uncertainty and understaffing are still very much in play. We ask a hell of a lot of public servants. We seek to provide five-star government with three-star resourcing, and it is natural that they are under huge pressure. You mentioned the 'good jobs' Bill. Over the past two years, I have worked closely with Department for the Economy officials, and I see the pressure. I understand the pressure that they are under, but my experience has been that the civil servants wants to deliver for people. They want to get the work done and ensure that there are improvements. The Assembly, the Committee, the trade union movement, and, indeed, everyone in this place, need to put our weight behind that and do what we can, and the trade union movement will try to do that.

Miss Dolan: Civil servants want to improve things, but there is only so much that they can do when there are limited resources.

Mr Murphy: Yes.

Miss Dolan: Thanks, Gerry.

Mr Carroll: From one Gerry to another. Thanks, Gerry. In the general discussion about the Civil Service, the accepted logic is that the public sector is too big, and that is incorrect. Can you expand on the comparison between the Civil Service here and in the UK? Did you say that the Civil Service had expanded by 2% in the North and 30% in the UK? More generally, what do you say when people say that the Civil Service is too big and needs to be reduced?

Mr Murphy: The figures that I quoted are from the Northern Ireland Audit Office's report. I will throw a couple more figures at you. The Audit Office reports that, over the 10-year period from 2016, our Civil Service increased by 2%. In the same period, the Scottish Civil Service increased by 70%, the Welsh Civil Service increased by 8%, and the overall UK increase was 31%. We ask much more from a smaller number of civil servants than other jurisdictions. For example, we administer social care, but the councils administer social care in the UK, which makes it an area of additional work. The other example of additional work is the administrative mechanisms that have fallen out of the Brexit settlement.

What was the second part of your question?

Mr Carroll: It was about the number of people.

Mr Murphy: You asked me whether the Civil Service is too big.

Mr Carroll: Yes, that is it.

Mr Murphy: Clearly, it is not too big; clearly, it is too small. We have 5,500 unfilled vacancies. Even if we filled them — if we were funding and resourcing the Civil Service to the level that it requires — we would probably have work for the same number of people again. On top of that, there are almost 4,000 — 12% of the workforce — in temporary posts. Again, I am taking those figures from the Audit Office report. Those are people who are effectively doing one and a half or two jobs. Anybody who suggests that it is too big and too sprawling is, frankly, wrong. The Civil Service needs to expand.

Mr Carroll: That is useful. Last week, we heard comments from FDA about AI. Obviously, there are possible benefits to AI, but there are also huge questions about it. Has ICTU any developed work on AI in the Civil Service? Or is it still early stages?

Mr Murphy: No, it is still very much in the early stages. We have significant concerns about AI, including its potential threat to jobs. We also have concerns about data, data management and data handling. We are very much in the early stages of looking at that. We are looking at it in the entire public service, not just the Civil Service. We have done some work. It is not an issue that is limited to the North; it is an issue for the trade union movement across the island and, probably, the whole world. It is something with which we are only beginning to get to grips. Our colleagues in the Financial Services Union have done a substantial amount of work. I point you to some work that that union, in particular, has produced. We will continue to do what we can to prepare ourselves, the workforce and our wider trade union colleagues for the advance of AI, but it will prove to be a huge challenge.

Mr Carroll: I have another quick question, if that is OK. You touched upon the length of time that it takes to interview and fill posts in the Civil Service. We have raised that a few times in the Committee, and I have had correspondence about it. A few people who have disabilities have contacted me with their concerns, because they have gone for posts and made it clear, before the interviews, that they have a disability but felt that they did not get the appropriate support during the interview or the appropriate response and support after the interview. These are people with disabilities. Has that come across ICTU's desk?

Mr Murphy: It has not come across my desk. ICTU has a disabilities committee, which is determined to see the back of the issues that you have highlighted. If you would care to share that material with us, we will take it forward on behalf of those members.

Mr Carroll: Thank you. That is useful. This is my final question. I am not asking this to get you into trouble with Robert Murtagh and colleagues, but some people say that the Civil Service is top-heavy and has too much management. Would you say that that is the case? Or does it have the correct balance?

Mr Murphy: The Civil Service is evolving. Some people might still believe it to be as you have described. I believe that it is evolving into a different animal, with strategic workforce planning, putting people first, and the collegiate atmosphere that I have pointed to in my evidence here. That is something that negates somewhat the perception that you describe. That does not mean that what you are pointing to is not a feature of elements of the Civil Service. However, I would be reluctant to accept that it is a feature of the service in its entirety.

Mr Carroll: OK, thanks.

Mr Kingston: Thank you, Gerry, for your attendance. First, I want to ask about agency workers. I do not know whether you have a particular view of agency employment. I put it to the Minister this week that the number of agency workers, according to the Department's statistics, has increased by 76% in the past three years. Yet, we always hear people saying that they want to reduce the number of agency workers. Looking at it from both points of view — of the employee and the employer or management — what are the pros and cons of being an agency worker? I imagine that there are more cons. Why do you think we have so many agency workers, and how do we get more of them into proper, long-term contracts?

Mr Murphy: There are a number of reasons for that. First, the VES resulted in a lot of experienced people leaving the Civil Service. The age profile of the service is now significantly older. Technology has developed, and the demands and capabilities are different. Different sets of skills are required that may not be available to the Civil Service, and the only way of acquiring those skills and capabilities quickly is to go to the market and get agency people to provide them.

Moreover, some people want the greater flexibility in their employment that agency work provides. Indeed, I could segue into a piece about the 'good jobs' Bill and the flexibility that might arise there. However, this is not the place for that discussion. My issue with agency working is that I have heard of people being in jobs for five, six and up to 10 years, in some cases. That suggests that there is an actual job there. If there is an actual job there, why continue to pay an additional agency subvention to employ that person? It further suggests that there are issues with salary, which I have highlighted, and possibly terms and conditions of employment.

All those are issues that we can address with the management of the Northern Ireland Civil Service. However, a 71% increase in agency workers does not seem sustainable. A good, hard look at the structure of the workforce and some serious planning on our needs and requirements should address that. I believe that we are on the cusp of that.

Mr Kingston: In pure financial terms, do agency workers get paid more? The agency is getting a cut, so it is costing the public purse more. Is there a downside? Are agency workers missing out on pension benefits and so on?

Mr Murphy: No. Agency workers cost more simply because the agency is, as you say, getting a cut. Agency workers get some entitlements but not all of them. It is not acceptable; it should be addressed. Every Minister, even in their silo, is committed to addressing it. It is the task of all of us to encourage them to do it quickly.

Mr Kingston: Slowness of recruitment is a factor. Is what you are saying that, when particular skills need to be brought in, agencies sometimes provide a way of getting around that?

Mr Murphy: It is not that agencies have a way of getting around it —

Mr Kingston: Shortening it, then.

Mr Murphy: — but they can provide the particular skill set or capability level that is required when it is required. The Northern Ireland Civil Service can do that for itself with, as I pointed out, strategic planning and the job families approach. An increase in the budget that each Department has for training its civil servants, a bit more thought and work being put into that area and, of course, additional resourcing, would also make a huge difference. There is no magic bullet for the agency workers issue — they are 12% of the workforce — so there will have to be a collective approach. Integr8 provides that.

Mr Kingston: I was going to come to Integr8. It is partly operational at the moment; is that right?

Mr Murphy: Yes.

Mr Kingston: Carmel from NIPSA and Robert from the FDA spoke, as you have spoken, about civil servants wanting to deliver. When I asked them about agility and flexibility, they said that people recognise the need for short-term task teams and mobility. In theory, Integr8 should help with that. It should provide an opportunity for people to follow a career path rather than feeling that they are stuck in a particular role and, in doing so, give them greater ability to develop themselves. What has your overall experience been of Integr8 so far, and are there particular problems that you want to highlight?

Mr Murphy: To be honest, my experience of Integr8 is limited, but I have discussed it with my trade union colleagues. They are enthused by the potential. They are concerned that it has been delayed and disrupted by the political situation, if you like, over a number of years and by financial uncertainty. However, they see huge potential in it. There is concern that the resourcing and the will to take it as far as it could be taken may suffer if the resource proves to be difficult to come by, but the potential is there. What has emerged to date appears to be welcome across the trade unions, but, again, concern remains about future resourcing and the speed of progress. If we are to achieve the transformation that is clearly required, things will have to speed up.

Mr Kingston: OK. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): OK. No one else has indicated that they wish to ask a question, so we will release you. Thanks, Gerry. We appreciate your coming to give evidence. Keep an eye out, and if you see anything else that would be beneficial to our inquiry into the Civil Service, please let us know.

Mr Murphy: Thank you very much for your time.