Civil service: Mosar questions replacement hiring

Laurent Mosar’s proposal not to automatically replace every member of staff who retires raises a question of how to balance workforce changes, service quality and public investment.

Laurent Mosar wants digitisation, artificial intelligence and administrative simplification to enable the state not to automatically replace every member of staff who retires. In an interview with RTL on 12 November, the CSV MP also questions some public investments, while praising the quality of the civil service. His proposal concerns the organisation and funding of services; it does not announce a recruitment freeze.

The debate takes place against the backdrop of the 2027 budget bill presented on 7 October, in which the government championed a record level of public investment, announced at more than 4.5 billion euros, or 4.4% of GDP. This figure and Mosar’s proposal concern different levers: one relates to an investment programme, the other to workforce renewal and spending priorities. Conflating them would turn a debate about trade-offs into a simplistic opposition between savings and public services.

Retirement does not automatically mean savings

Mosar’s proposal is not to automatically replace every civil servant who retires, on the grounds that some tasks could be simplified or handled differently. It is neither a government-imposed recruitment freeze nor proof that any jobs have become unnecessary. A departure prompts a decision: keep the post, redistribute duties, change the organisation or not recruit a replacement.

These choices do not all have the same budgetary effect. Not replacing an employee can reduce recurring staffing costs, but the saving depends on which duties are retained and how they are carried out. If they are transferred to other teams, the workload changes but does not disappear. If a digital tool takes them on, its implementation and operation must also be taken into account, along with the work needed to deal with cases the tool cannot resolve. Digitisation can transform a service; in itself, it does not show how many jobs can be cut.

This distinction matters as much to households and businesses as it does to the public finances. A faster or simpler service can reduce administrative procedures and waiting times. But if reorganisation lengthens waits or shifts tasks onto service users, the reduction in spending recorded by an administration does not necessarily amount to a saving for society as a whole. To assess a change, it is therefore necessary to look at the resources used, the continuity of the service and the outcome delivered.

Staffing costs and investment: two different timeframes

Public investment funds infrastructure or equipment, while staffing costs pay employees and recur over time. Both feature in budgetary choices, but they are not mechanically interchangeable. Building or adapting a facility does not, in itself, guarantee that the staff needed to operate it will be available. Conversely, reducing annual staffing costs does not directly fund a specific investment: the funding comes under different budget decisions and timetables.

When presenting the 2027 budget bill, Finance Minister Gilles Roth defended a counter-cyclical fiscal policy: supporting economic activity, purchasing power and competitiveness when growth is moderate. The more than 4.5 billion announced covers the public investments planned for 2027; it is a projected amount, not spending that has already taken place, nor a sum earmarked solely for administrative buildings. The government presents this effort as a means of supporting the economy and infrastructure. At the presentation, it also planned 160 new police posts in 2027. This example concerns one specific service, not the total number of state recruitment posts.

Mosar also questions some investment choices. RTL reports that he cites the swimming pool project intended for the Sportslycée in Mamer, asking whether existing facilities could be used, as well as the state’s investment in the K2 building in Kirchberg, where he considers that the use of all the offices is not yet clear. These examples express the MP’s judgement on priorities; they do not amount to a quantified audit of these projects.

The service delivered at the heart of the trade-off

Mosar’s criticism concerns the future growth of the state and how it chooses its spending. It comes alongside a favourable view of the quality of Luxembourg’s civil service. His reasoning therefore combines an expectation of restraint with an aim of modernisation, rather than a general rejection of public services.

For its part, the CGFP set out its priorities on 19 October, following a discussion with the Finance Minister about the budget bill. The trade union confederation believes that an effective civil service needs sufficient human and financial resources, and that social investment should not bear the brunt of poorly targeted cuts. It also calls for the responsible use of artificial intelligence, taking account of the risks to workers and society. This trade union position does not, by itself, settle how effective a service is or what its optimal staffing level should be: it emphasises that available resources also determine the capacity to meet needs.

The two approaches therefore raise distinct questions. Can a post be reorganised without compromising the service? Does an investment meet a sufficiently established need? Do the expected savings take account of operating costs and the workload shifted elsewhere? Answering these questions requires comparable information on costs and results, not just an overall figure or an isolated example.

A debate about priorities, not yet a reform

The practical choices will be made through budgetary and organisational decisions: which projects are approved, which services recruit, which tasks change and which results are monitored. To assess a saving, it will be necessary to compare avoided spending with costs incurred and check what users receive in return. It is at this level that useful modernisation can be distinguished from a simple reduction in resources.