The government has unveiled its proposals on the next phase of public sector reform through a White Paper published a couple of weeks ago.

Last week I had commented on the criticism that is levied at the government that it is doing little about the problems facing this country and as such is very often accused of inertia. The reaction of the trade unions to the government on this proposal has been to advise caution and not to move too fast.

I believe that the government has to use wisdom in its judgment; the actual Maltese word for is ghaqal. However, it should not move with caution unless good sense requires it.

I have likened this exercise to the one that is undergone regularly in business organisations - organisational restructuring. We all know that organisational restructuring is an ongoing process that can hardly stop.

And, in effect, the reform of the public service has been going on for the last 15 years and has been done in phases. Then it was a public service that was atrophying, with little to no motivation at all levels, with little effort to inculcate a sense of responsibility and accountability, with little development of the public servants, and where direction, planning, communication and coordination were inexistent.

The first phase of public service reforms were meant to reduce red tape, to make the service more efficient and to render it more customer caring. At the same time a significant investment was made in the training of staff at all levels.

The initiatives taken included the introduction of the business planning process, promotions were no longer based on seniority, information technology was no longer available just to a select few public servants but started to be made available across the board, and the appointment of public officers started to be based on three year performance management contracts.

The second phase emphasised greatly the aspect of service delivery. As such the general public started to access public services through the internet; a number of departments made commitments with the general public on the level of service they were going to deliver through the quality service charters; an element of productivity was increased through the introduction of the public-private partnership initiative.

Through these various initiatives, it became fairly evident that a number of public servants were underemployed and through a process of natural wastage, the numbers in certain categories of employees started to be reduced. In effect the structure of the odd 30,000 employees in the public service merits a separate discussion.

There was also a reduction in the number of grades to twenty making way for more flexibility, while there were new openings in a number of areas given the increased level of professionalism required of public servants today. These openings have increased even more and are expected to increase even further because of Malta's membership of the European Union. The EU negotiation process also made it possible for public servants to establish international contact and therefore widen its horizons.

There have also been a number of changes at the level of individual departments that have continued to achieve a greater sense of accountability and increased efficiency. One particular example is the budget that each head of school was given to spend on items that are required by the school itself rather than having to depend on the centralised system.

This element of decentralisation was also put into effect when departmental heads were given the opportunity to discipline staff at the level of the Ministry rather than having to go through a centralised process. Several grades within the public service also fall what is termed the performance management programme, which is also managed within the individual departments and ministries.

I would understand that some may be quite cynical of these initiatives especially if a person did not receive the service that one expected to, or if an employee feels that he has been unjustly treated by his superiors. In fact, you frequently hear that unless the rule of hire and fire is introduced in the public service, employees would have no incentive to perform.

I tend to take a different view. One gets lousy service even within the private sector. Moreover, hiring and firing at will does not in any case increase motivation. It is known to kill it because it removes a sense of security among employees.

What is required rather is a stronger management where bad performance does not continue to be rewarded by inaction, fear of being paid back or a laissez faire attitude by some senior officers.

The third phase of public service reform is in effect meant to address this issue of management. A stronger emphasis is expected to be made on merit and ethics, while heads of departments are expected to be given more responsibility in the selection of persons, in the organisation and direction of their staff, in the control and correction of their staff and in the development of their staff.

Such responsibilities may have already been there but old habits or outdated structures have hindered certain initiatives and processes. One needs to appreciate that the public service suffers from the same malaise that any large organisation suffers from. This is why its management needs to be devolved - it would make effective management more possible.

However, the critical issue is whether the various components of the public service add value to the economy and the country at large. The whole objective of effective management of the public service is not profit as public servants are not guided by the profit motive.

Nevertheless, they are still responsible for spending the taxpayers' money. Every hour of overtime that they approve is paid for by you and me. This means that public servants are custodians of our money - hence their overall responsibility to add value in whatever they do.

Therefore, the issue of public sector reform should not be viewed from the point of view of job security, or status, or fear of losing one's cushy environment. Trade unions would be doing a great disservice to the country if they defend interests that are not justified. They cannot continue to resort to industrial action because work practices that lead to inefficiencies and sometimes even abuse are changed.

There are cases of companies that have to pay for some service that is provided by public servants when this is not required. It is as if we have first class citizens, those that earn money for work that is not required, and second class citizens, those that have to sweat hard for every cent they earn to make sure it is justified. It is instances like these that make the continued public sector reform so necessary. And the success of this reform should be measured against one single criterion - is it adding value?