Seamus Brennan
Question:6 Mr. S. Brennan asked the Taoiseach the action, if any, he proposes to take to implement the suggestions which he put before the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs in regard to public service reform. [1093/96]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Public Service Reform.
Seamus Brennan
Question:7 Mr. S. Brennan asked the Taoiseach if he will give further details regarding his proposals for public sector performance related pay as suggested by him before the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs. [1095/96]
Bertie Ahern
Question:8 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach whether he intends to publish reports or statements relating to individual Departments under the Strategic Management Initiative. [1157/96]
Mary Harney
Question:9 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if the Government intends to introduce multiannual budgeting for the public service. [1238/96]
Mary Harney
Question:10 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if he intends to introduce a concerted programme of delegation and delegation of decision making powers within the public service; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1239/96]
Mary Harney
Question:11 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if the Government intends to introduce performance related pay throughout the public service. [1241/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 to 11, inclusive, together.
When I attended the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs, I said that one of the major objectives for this Government is to make the delivery of quality service the ethos of all who work for the State. I want to see a programme of devolution of decision making power to front-line staff and rewards for risks taken in pursuit of a better service. I said, in this context, that we will have to look at performance related pay but noted that there are difficulties associated with it. I told the select committee that I regard performance related pay as an issue which is towards the end of the agenda rather than at the very top, because of the many practical difficulties in devising a scheme that will be fair and capable of being administered reasonably uniformly across different areas of service.
On multi-annual budgeting, I said that I considered this to be essential if we are to make the strategic approach work. Producing Estimates for just one year, and not giving Departments and offices an indication of the level of resources which will be available in subsequent years, will have to cease, if we are to manage our resources effectively over time.
I also told the select committee that the second report to Government of the Co-ordinating Group of Secretaries, established under the Strategic Management Initiative, has now been received and will shortly be considered by Government. The report sets out a comprehensive framework for the renewal of the Civil Service. Details of the renewal programme will be announced following Government consideration and that announcement will include decisions on all the specific individual issues raised in the questions today, which are addressed in the second report to Government, namely, delegation and devolution of decision making powers within the Civil Service; performance related pay, multi-annual budgeting and publication of strategy statements for individual Departments.
Many of us sympathise with the views expressed by the Taoiseach at the select committee. The problem is that we are not clear about what he will do about any of them. Does he still take the view that it is satisfactory and the right way to proceed to appoint an increasing number of advisers, as the Leader of Democratic Left did recently, and does he see any role for advisers in the new Civil Service structure about which he has spoken?
I do not think there is any need to appoint an increasing number of advisers. We have just about the right number. Decision making at Government level involves a mix of political and administrative concerns. It is appropriate that Ministers should be able to avail of political advice in making decisions but the prime source of advice should be the permanent Civil Service. The balance which has been struck is about right. I would not favour any increase in the number of special advisers, neither would I favour a marked reduction.
Does the Taoiseach see any connection between the increasing army of advisers, at a cost in the region of £12 million a year, and the increased leaking of Cabinet papers?
I do not know from where the figure of £12 million comes but it sounds like a confection from some creative accountant who has been working for the Deputy. I do not think it is accurate. It probably includes consultancy fees and other costs which have been incurred by Governments since the beginning of time to deal with administrative problems and do not relate, in most cases, with the giving of political advice. The cost of programme managers and special advisers is comparatively small. In the case of each Minister, it is the salary of two people. It is reasonable that Ministers should have such advice available to them. As the records will show, it has enabled us to get through Cabinet business far more expeditiously than has been the case under previous Governments.
It is all over the papers.
If we did not have the ability to clear issues through trusted advisers at a lower level, there would be a much greater burden on Ministers and diversion of ministerial time from outward directed work.
Photo opportunities.
As a number of departmental strategic management initiative reports were completed this time last year, does the Government intend to publish them or at least lay them before a committee? It was originally intended that the reports would form a comprehensive strategic document for Government, representative of all Departments and drafted by the Taoiseach's Department and the Department of Finance. Will that document go before Government? So far none of the documents has reached the public or committee domain. If the intention is not to publish the reports, what does the Taoiseach propose to do with them?
I answered that question when I appeared before the committee where I indicated that it was not the case that most of the reports were available this time last year. Reports from two Departments are outstanding and they will be published during the year.
Those responsible should be in big trouble.
The reports will be compiled as an overall strategic plan for the Government as a whole which will guide public administration into the next century.
I welcome the proposed move to multi-annual budgeting. Does the Taoiseach agree that we also need a unified budgetary process, in other words that we should make decisions on spending and revenue at the same time? There will not be a proper focus on tax matters unless decisions on the manner in which money is raised is made at the same time as decisions on revenue. Will the Taoiseach give consideration to that process?
I wholeheartedly agree that unless spending and tax decisions are made at the same time a proper balance or trade off between the two will not be arrived at. If we make spending decisions first and treat tax as residual we will not proceed in the best way in terms of priority setting. In preparing this year's budget we sought to make decisions on spending and tax in conjunction with one another, but I agree that there could be greater integration of the two processes in future planning and I hope that will occur.
Given that 222,000 people, excluding those who work in commercial State bodies, work in the public sector — 15 per cent of the total workforce — and their pay bill is £4.8 billion per annum, more than we raise in income tax, does the Taoiseach agree that the only way to contain public sector pay is to rationalise numbers? That can be done only by introducing greater autonomy for the management of Government Departments so that cash limits are set on salaries and management can decide whether to employ fewer people on higher pay and, through productivity and the use of technology, get more out of fewer people.
That is the direction in which I would like to move. Under the strategic management initiative it is the Government's intention to move towards a position where individual managers can make decisions about the deployment of staff resources to deal with particular problems. As the Deputy is well aware, in the past the Civil Service has operated on the basis of a unitary service with analogues in terms of pay between people in, say, the prison and hospital services. These set a precedent and if one moved up others also wanted to move up.
In proceeding with the strategic management initiative it is important to cooperate with the trade unions representing public service employees. The Minister of State, Deputy Doyle, has put a great deal of effort into ensuring that the public service trade union movement understands that the strategic management initiative is not a threat to employees' rights. Rather it offers them a freer environment in which to work, in which their talents will have greater scope for expression and in which they will have more freedom of initiative. Given that the work may be carried out more efficiently there may be a cost saving because of the need for fewer staff. However, it is important to point out that those working in the service will have a much more rewarding working life, not only financially but also in terms of the sense of self worth they will get from making decisions and being appreciated for the work they do, rather than the current position in which many public servants consider themselves a cog in a wheel performing a role set for them by a person whom they do not meet.
The Minister of State, Deputy Doyle, stated that she believed the process of the strategic management initiative would take seven years to complete. I agree that it should be planned over the long time.
I initiated the process of multi-annual budgets in the Department of Finance. While there has been a great deal of talk about such budgets, I have yet to hear anyone define the term. People speak of them as an effective means of dealing with public expenditure. However, under the present system a multi-annual budget could be a way of not getting rid of something that has outlived its usefulness. Under annual budgets something that proves ineffective can be got rid of. If there is not an in-built review such budgeting could turn out to be a nightmare for taxpayers.
There is talk about accrual budgets. Does the Taoiseach agree that it would be wise to discuss all these initiatives in a White Paper? It is the people outside the public service who pay for them. The audit review group is also carrying out a survey. All these initiatives are being taken independently and do not meet in a coherent way. If we are to achieve anything we must discuss them together and present them to the public in a coherent manner, rather than in buzz words that mean nothing.
We have a great deal of work to do on the detail of how multi-annual budgeting would work. I agree that it could result in rigidifying inefficiency over time rather than for one year. On the other hand, as some decisions may not cost very much in their first year but could cost a great deal in the second or third year, we must know their long-term cost implications.
We need rigorous thinking about the medium term consequences of the decisions we make. Multi-annual budgeting is not a paper exercise involving the production of vast documents. It simply requires decision makers to think through in a systematic way the consequences of decisions for the following few years and I doubt if anyone could disagree with that. How it is structured in terms of exact procedure and so on will be a difficult issue which will take time to work out. I am satisfied with the level of commitment to this subject within the Government and am glad the Minister included this in his Budget Statement. I agree that it will take some time to work out its full implications, but that is not an excuse for not starting on the road now.
When will the Taoiseach's proposals in regard to performance related pay in the Civil Service be implemented? In particular, does he see it applying to the heads of semi-State companies like the Chief Executive of Bord Fáilte or Telecom Éireann?
These are not "the Taoiseach's proposals"; that was the way they were reported in one newspaper. These proposals were contained in the strategic management initiative in all its incarnations from the previous Government. Performance related pay has already been introduced in the Assistant Secretary grade, so it not something I have come up with; it is not a new idea. I have said that I see many practical difficulties with it and that I do not see it as the number one item on the agenda, but rather as being towards the end of the agenda. However, I accept that if an individual working in the public service saves the taxpayer a huge amount of money as a result of a decision or course of action, not to reward them in some way for that would encourage them to seek employment in other areas where they will be rewarded for exceptional performance. I do not regard promotion as necessarily the best way of rewarding good performance, because sometimes promotion means moving someone out of a job they are good at into a job they are not so good at.
We saw that when the Taoiseach's party moved from the Opposition benches to the Government benches.
The Deputy's sense of humour is running away with him today. I am glad to see the Deputy is enjoying Opposition, it suits him.
Senior members of the Taoiseach's party have recently been talking about re-establishing the Department of the Public Service. Let me remind the Taoiseach of the reasons that Department was abolished. The staffing structure became very top heavy with many more senior people than other Departments. One of the senior members of the Taoiseach's parliamentary party——
It was Deputy Mitchell.
——spoke about this for 20 minutes during a radio interview last Sunday week.
Deputy, we are waiting for a question.
Does the Taoiseach deny that the Government intends to reestablish the Department of the Public Service?
The Taoiseach is not listening to his backbenchers; we know that from the budget.
There are not many arguments in favour of reconstituting the Department of the Public Service. The way we have chosen of giving the Taoiseach overall responsibility for the strategic management initiative, while the main operational responsibility rests with the Minister for Finance, is probably the best way of achieving the impetus for public service reform. However, there is no problem with individual Members of the House or of committees who are overseeing these sort of issues putting forward different views. We all benefit from debate.