John Bruton
Ceist:3 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he has satisfied himself with the progress on the key issues for the implementation of his Department's strategy statement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25075/99]
Vol. 512 No. 7
3 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he has satisfied himself with the progress on the key issues for the implementation of his Department's strategy statement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25075/99]
4 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the progress, if any, made to formulate the legislative and administrative priorities of his Department for 2000; and the achievements of the 1999 programme. [25081/99]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 and 4 together.
My Department's strategy statement covering the period 1998 – 2001 was laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas on 1 May 1998. The major goals for the Department set out in it may be summarised as follows: facilitating the efficient functioning of Government; achieving and maintaining lasting peace on the island of Ireland and the realisation of a new agreed three stranded political settlement; developing a strategic focus for this country's interests and image at international level; working with the social partners to develop and implement national programmes of economic and social development; and the ongoing development of an efficient public service.
As will be clear from recent developments and my replies to previous questions in the House, very significant progress has been made in achieving the goals, and work is ongoing on the basis of divisional business plans to achieve these. As part of the overall strategic planning process in my Department, a series of presentations of the business plans to the management advisory committee is currently under way. This will assist in the process of prioritising the work of the Department and the associated resources required. In addition, work is currently under way on a progress report on the strategy statement, as required under section 4 of the Public Service Management Act, 1997. It is anticipated that this work will be completed early in the new year and that copies of the progress report will then be submitted to Government and will, when approved, be laid before both Houses for their information.
On a related point, the strategic management initiative division of my Department is charged with the ongoing development of an efficient public service which delivers excellent services and in which authority, responsibility and accountability are clearly set out at all levels. The SMI is now moving from design to implementation, and a number of key priorities have been identified for current and future work. These are deepening the quality customer service initiative; the regulatory reform action programme; freedom of information; new financial management systems; human resource management issues, including performance management and recruitment; and gender equality. I am happy with the progress which is being made with regard to all of these areas.
In addition, my Department has undertaken a comprehensive programme of financial management reform during 1999. This programme includes the implementation of the reforms set out in the strategic management initiative and approved by the Government during 1999, an examination of how greater value for money can be obtained from administrative expenditure, and an assessment of how information technology can be better deployed to improve the service provided by the finance unit. Professional advice has been engaged to assist with the reform process. In response to the legislative priorities of my Department for 2000, drafting of a Bill to place the National Economic and Social Council and the National Economic and Social Forum on a statutory footing is at an advanced stage. It is expected that this Bill will be published early in 2000.
Overall, I consider that my Department has made a significant contribution to moving the agenda forward in relation to the key areas set out in the Department's strategy statement and I am satisfied with its performance.
The Taoiseach identified the first function of his Department under the strategic management initiative as facilitating the efficient functioning of Government. In that context, what role did the Department of the Taoiseach play in framing Budget 2000?
Which one?
Does the Taoiseach think the targets for facilitating the efficient functioning of Government were achieved in that regard, given the budget has been revised for the third time in two weeks?
The Department of the Taoiseach played the same role in framing the budget as it does every year and it will continue to do so. I wish to correct the Deputy regarding his notion that there has been a further revision. In the context of negotiations on what will I hope be a successful new programme, the Government, like the social partners, must take account of the issues on the agenda. That will have to be negotiated in the early months of next year.
Was the addition of £125 million to the budget deficit to compensate spouses in the home for being unable to freely transfer tax allowances, as was previously the case, prompted by the social partners? Given that the strategic management initiative refers to the measurement of success against quantifiable targets, what financial envelope is being provided in the ongoing negotiations with social partners? Is a particular sum available to alter or add to budget 2000?
No sum is being provided for any amendments. As regards what will happen over three years, the process is confidential. However, the Department of Finance has presented the social partners with what it believes the financial position will be in that three years. We must be prudent and keep within those parameters so we can continue the excellent economic growth achieved in the past ten to 12 years. At the start of the decade we had a high current budget deficit, an extraordinarily high Exchequer borrowing requirement, very low economic growth and along with Belgium, the highest Government debt-GDP ratio in the EU. We are ending the decade without a current budget deficit, Exchequer borrowing requirement, or requirement for capital borrowing and with the third – I hope it will soon be the second – lowest debt-GDP ratio in the EU and the highest economic growth, not only in the EU but also in the OECD. The Government and the Minister for Finance are conscious of maintaining this excellent position which the Minister has helped to bring about.
I would discourage any intrusion into the budget debate proper on Question Time.
The Taoiseach will accept I am familiar with the good statistics he quoted, to which I contributed as Taoiseach in Government. This was a seamless achievement of successive Governments, not of one, as I know the Taoiseach will acknowledge. Does the Taoiseach agree his Department has two key roles – facilitating the efficient functioning of Government and working with the social partners to develop and implement national programmes of economic and social development? With the benefit of hindsight and following due recollection, does the Taoiseach agree it might have been better to have had discussions with the social partners about the increases in allowances, vis-à-vis the widening of bands and the reduction of rates, before introducing the budget rather than having consultations afterwards and announcing it as a tablet of stone only to find that it is now a lump of clay?
As I have pointed out, we cannot have a prolonged discussion on this matter. I will allow the Taoiseach a final reply.
I accept that hindsight is an exact science and the Taoiseach is as good at it as anyone else. On reflection, does he think he might have better fulfilled the strategic management goals of his Department, including the official functioning of Government and working with the social partners, if they had been consulted about the broad lines of the tax policy in the budget before rather than after?
I would be glad to give a long reply if this was a debate on the issue. That would have been an interesting discussion if the social partners had not made it absolutely clear that the provisions of the budget would not be credited in the next round of talks. Therefore, that discussion was not relevant. It was clear to the social partners that most of the commitments given by this Government would continue to be fulfilled.
How could one not take account of a three year tax strategy announced by the Minister for Finance, in a three year partnership agreement? Surely there should have been consultations on a three year tax package.
Contradiction after contradiction.
The Taoiseach has not adequately answered the question.
We must proceed. Does the Deputy have a relevant question?
Is the Taoiseach satisfied there are adequate quantifiable and quantified measures of performance in his Department and its strategy statement? Does he agree that some of the statements contained in that document are so general and philosophical that they do not allow any meaningful monitoring of success?
The SMI strategy from the time of its launch in 1992 has been to try to get civil servants to become involved in the formulation of policies. It was felt there should be direct Governmental and departmental involvement in agreeing a programme so that the priority of the Taoiseach's Department would be to use more of its resources to follow these practices rather than the normal legislative practice. In so far as it is possible to do so, both in terms of the strategy statement worked out by the officeholder and in the goals set down, I am trying to motivate staff at all levels in order to make the job more interesting and realistic. The strategy may not be perfect but we will continue to look at ways to improve it. This is a new practice and I am confident the implementation of the strategy in identifying our goals and objectives is working well.