Vol. 439 No. 6
1 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the way in which he proposes to give effect to the changes he has advocated in the public service, including his proposal for joint ventures between the public and private sectors; the areas he has in mind for such an initiative; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The Government decided to proceed with the initiative of public service management that I announced on Tuesday last on the basis that we need change in the public service so that we can respond to the economic and social challenges we are facing. Our partnership Government provides the stability that gives us an opportunity to make worthwhile change.
The Government has decided that each Secretary and Head of Office will put in place a process of strategic management, within the framework of the Programme for a Partnership Government, the National Development Plan and the Programme for Competitiveness and Work.
Each will produce, as a first step, an action oriented statement of strategy. These statements will outline where Departments should be strategically to meet the objectives of the Programme for Partnership Government, the National Development Programme and the Programme for Competitiveness and Work, as opposed to where they currently are and how they will achieve the change required.
The Government has decided, also, that a new co-ordinating group of secretaries will recommend management changes, including legislation, if such is needed. These changes will be designed to enable individual secretaries to manage more efficiently and effectively given the conflicting needs of overall control and line responsibility. In this regard, the proposals in the draft public service pay agreement in regard to restructuring will provide an opportunity within the necessary financial parameters for public service management and public service unions to work together to agree change in structure and work practices for the mutual benefit of both parties.
The group will also recommend the ways in which interacting departmental strategies should be co-ordinated to achieve the benefits of an overall view.
The statements of strategy and the positions produced by the co-ordinating group of secretaries will, of course, be for ministerial and Government decision in every case. Work on the new initiative will build on but probably must go well beyond action already underway. This action includes changes in the structures of Government Departments and agencies; the new system of programme managers; work by Departments, principally the Departments of Social Welfare and Health and the Revenue Commissioners, on customer service; networks at assistant secretary and principal levels and the administrative budget system. The new service-wide initiative will add momentum to these actions.
The three key areas to be addressed in the new strategy process are the contribution public bodies can make to national development; providing an excellent service to the public and making efficient and effective use of resources.
I see strategies being developed for all public bodies, be they Government Departments, local authorities, health boards, commercial and non-commercial State bodies. I see the important first steps being in place in six months. The entire process must be based on two key principles. Management must know what needs to be changed and the change must come from within.
The issue of joint ventures between the public and private sectors and the public sector taking a commercial approach are important options in the process of public bodies making a substantial contribution to national development. Worthwhile opportunities can be identified for such joint ventures or commercial approaches and I believe these can happen in a variety of ways with varying levels of formality. For example, a joint working party representative of the Department of Finance and the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General will shortly bring forward proposals to update Government financial procedures, including greater flexibility for quasi-commercial operations within Departments. There will be action which is fully consistent with the commitment in the Programme for Partnership Government that the main strategic utilities and enterprises remain in the ownership of the Irish people while having the freedom to enter joint ventures with the private and co-operative sectors. My objective is to ensure the opportunities which exist are seriously considered by public bodies as options when they come to assess how they can strengthen significantly their contribution to national development.
Does the Taoiseach know what any of it means?
I do, even if the Deputy does not.
I thank the Taoiseach for his reply and compliment him on his initiative. I also compliment the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs on the new customer-friendly service in the Passport Office which I was happy to visit when it opened yesterday. I support the joint venture proposals in relation to a role for the private sector with State companies. Will the Taoiseach confirm that Aer Lingus is looking for a private investor and that Telecom Éireann is negotiating with a private investor? Are these the kind of ventures the Taoiseach would support?
The most recent is the joint venture between Coillte Teoranta and Louisiana Pacific. The ESB has private sector involvement. There are 20 companies, eight of them jointly owned by private sector interests. Most companies compete effectively and form part of a diversification programme on which the ESB has embarked. Specific partnerships for other State bodies is a matter for the companies themselves. We have no proposals before us from either Aer Lingus or Telecom Éireann.
Are Telecom and Aer Lingus the kind of companies the Taoiseach is talking about?
As laid down in the Programme for Government, in the Programme for Competitiveness and Work, all commercial and quasi-commercial State bodies will given the challenges they face in the market place, have an opportunity to develop joint ventures. We encourage that as far as possible.
Is the Taoiseach aware that Telecom Éireann is involved in negotiations to find a private investor?
I am not aware of the details of negotiations in any of the instances mentioned.
The details?
There are no proposals before Government.
Would the Taoiseach agree from his considerable experience of business that effective management comes in part from having simple objectives? Would he agree that the reply he ploughed through must rate as an essay in obfuscatory complexity? Any public servant who understands what it means must have a degree in English but very little other attributions of value. Would he agree that as a prerequisite to success and to set an example he should insist on simple, short replies to questions like this so that people will know that simplicity in the following of clear objectives is what we seek from our public service at every level from the Taoiseach down?
One page replies.
I recall the days when one sheet replies were not in fashion. When I tried to make it simple people asked for fuller details but when Deputies get fuller details they want it otherwise. There is nothing mysterious — I am sure Deputy Bruton would be the first to agree — about asking the head of a Government Department to produce a strategic management plan, as in private sector business, where companies and heads of divisions would, routinely produce a strategic development plan for their own particular area. There is nothing mischievious or mystical about it.
As long as it makes sense.
It is simple, straightforward economic planning for one's own Department. The Government will bring all the plans together and ensure there is interaction which gives us effective economic management in the future.
All I want——
There is nothing unusual about asking people who supply customer services to supply the best possible service to the customer at good value for money. If Deputy Bruton sees something strange in that he should say so.
I compliment the Taoiseach——
Let us proceed by way of questions.
You have to deal differently with people who are being uncomplimentary in this House.
I know, Deputy, but I want to proceed in a serious way at Question Time.
I commend whoever writes the Taoiseach's replies on the simplicity of the answer to my last supplementary and ask that the original might contain some of the same simplicity.
May I ask the Taoiseach——
Plain language, plain objectives.
——if he envisages in this package of public service reform a change in the traditional role of Ministers and their accountability to the House and if so, would it require legislation? Will the additional autonomy given to secretaries of Departments recently, in terms of administrative budgets, be extended? Does he envisage, as part of this reform, that the pay restraints on chief executives of State companies and other bodies within the remit of Gleeson — the last person in charge of higher remuneration in the public service review body — will be altered, removed or discounted?
There is no point in asking heads of Departments to make out strategic plans if you tell them in advance what your decisions will be and what you expect them to do. We are saying that change must come from within. The head of each Department, the Secretary, in consultation with the Minister, will produce a strategic plan pointing out what strategic changes they may require to be more effective and to produce a better customer service——
I thought the Government was initiating the reform, not the Secretaries reforming themselves.
It is very hard to make it out.
If the Deputy listened to my reply he would have heard that we are asking the head of each Government Department to produce, within six months, a strategic development plan. In relation to the other part of Deputy Rabbitte's question, Ministers are accountable to the House. We are accountable at Question Time and on Estimates, I do not know what more accountability Deputy Rabbitte has in mind or what changes he envisages in that regard.
We did not get many answers yesterday.
Since the Taoiseach is not prepared to deal with Aer Lingus and Telecom, will he indicate whether the proposals in the Programme for Government in relation to the third sector bank are going ahead or have been shelved? What are the Government's proposals in relation to the airports, under Aer Rianta, for commercialising and putting them on the market?
We are having specific questions, worthy of separate questions.
Order, please, I am not prepared to allow the subject matter of questions on the Order Paper today to become a general debate.
The Taoiseach is very happy to avoid the question.
I am happy to answer it.
We have been dealing with this matter for a quarter of an hour. I will not go much further on it.
The Taoiseach's reply reminded me of an official in Donegal who had the capacity to stretch two pages of material into ten. I ask for shorter replies.
What is the criteria applying to joint ventures for semi-State bodies? Does he envisage a situation where a semi-State organisation could enter a joint venture with a private company to manufacture and supply a product already being supplied to the market here? In other words, does he envisage semi-State organisations entering joint ventures to go into competition against existing private industry?
Every project would have to be judged on its merits. I do not know what the Deputy has in mind. We have given an example in relation to Louisiana Pacific. There are other areas that can operate on a commercial basis such as the Companies Office and the Patents Office. At present we are setting up a commercial State body for air traffic controllers.
My question——
Let us, first of all, hear what the Taoiseach has to say in respect of the question.
Every project will be judged on its own merits. In case Deputy McDowell thinks I am trying to dodge the question, I do not have any plans in relation to privatisation of airports.
My question referred to the criteria that would apply——
I am sorry, Deputy Molloy, I will not allow this to become an argument across the floor of the House. If the Deputy has a relevant question——
The specific question I want answered is whether the Taoiseach envisages a semi-State body being authorised to enter a joint venture to manufacture or produce a product or supply a service which is already being supplied by the private sector?
It will be a matter for the head of each Government Department to look at the strategic course to be pursued, not alone by the Department but by State bodies under its control.
Who is leading this Government?
Please, I should get a chance to answer.
We have spent 20 minutes on one question.
I have not got an answer. It was a simple, straightforward question.
I am calling Deputy Rabbitte for a final, brief, relevant question.
Does the Government have any ideas about public service reform or is he asking the Civil Service to come forward with proposals about reforming themselves? Second, can the Taoiseach——
I did ask for brevity.
There is only one sentence to each of the supplementaries I wish to put. Will the Taoiseach reply to the question of pay restraint in the public sector for chief executives? In the specific area mentioned in the Programme for Government can we expect the emergence of a third banking force in the Irish economy?
The question of a third banking force is being worked on by the Minister for Finance and no doubt he will bring forward his proposals in due course. In regard to reform, the Deputy has missed the point in what I have been trying to say today. We have asked the head of every Government Department to come up with a strategic plan, within six months, for his own area of responsibility. As Deputy Rabbitte is aware, the question of pay is dealt with through existing structures. We await proposals from various Departments to improve the system. As of now there is no change in the pay structures for public servants.
