We know and accept that a serious oversight has occurred. Our task today is to consider ways of ensuring that similar lapses will not happen in the future. In this regard, I wish to refer specifically to the strategic management initiative, or SMI as it is more commonly known, and to the valuable role which it will play in greatly minimising the risk of administrative error. I have spoken about SMI many times previously, in this House and elsewhere, and have emphasized the important contribution it can make to continuously improving the overall management of the public service.
I must advert, however, to comments in some of today's newspapers. They do little justice to the time and commitment this Government has invested in the strategic management initiative and the public service renewal programme as outlined in Delivering Better Government on 2 May 1996. Some of the editorials in today's newspapers are contentious. It makes no sense to suggest, as they do, that the Civil Service is resistant to change. It must be borne in mind that the Civil Service is not a single organisation but a confederation of organisations with a complex mandate. Change on a significant scale in such a context is not easy to achieve. In my experience and contrary to the view expressed in today's Irish Independent, the vast majority of civil servants are amenable to change and welcome initiatives which improve the delivery of service.
I wish to focus on the potential of SMI for addressing the questions which today's debate has raised. How can we ensure that our administrative structures provide a watertight means of implementing the decisions and policies of Government? What procedures are in place for reviewing the effectiveness of existing administrative arrangements? What steps are being taken to ensure that these procedures will continue to be effective?
SMI contains an emphatic answer to each of these questions. It sets out a framework for ensuring that the Civil Service employs the most effective management practices, practices which will continue to meet the increasingly demanding needs placed on Government in today's rapidly changing environment. If pressure of work is an issue or workload is unevenly distributed within a Department or office, SMI provides management with the means of ensuring that alarm bells ring in good time and that necessary corrective action is taken. In other words, SMI is designed to help highlight potential problems before they arise, not after the event.
In the context of SMI, a number of Departments, including the Department of Justice, have completed an analysis of how their organisations are run and the steps that must be taken to anticipate problems more effectively. The Government decided earlier this year that each Department and office should publish the resulting statement of strategy. This will be the first time such statements will be published. The Department of Justice, for example, intends to publish its statement by mid-December.
The Strategic Management Initiative does not stop there. The majority of Departments are currently developing the SMI process so that it aligns the day-to-day work of the organisation with the objectives and communication arrangements identified in their statement of strategy. This will not be achieved overnight. The SMI process will take time to develop. In recognition of this, and the need to ensure that the process of change across Departments is both comprehensive and well co-ordinated, the Government launched its programme of change for the Civil Service last May. It was launched by the Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Quinn, the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Spring, and the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, and is entitled Delivering Better Government. Some Members of the Opposition and people in the media appear to have forgotten the time and work invested by the Government in this project. We did not become converts to SMI and renewal of the public sector in the past three days
The programme contains a number of elements which will impact significantly on the questions raised by events in the Department of Justice. First, it will entail a quality service initiative designed to put in place concerted arrangements within Departments to ensure, on an ongoing basis, that services are delivered to the highest standard and that the needs of those being served are paramount. Such a quality service initiative will raise the profile of customer needs, thus ensuring that there is a clear focus on, and effective internal arrangements for, delivering a quality service. In this context the term "customer" embraces not just members of the public but the Minister and the Government. It is all too easy to forget that Ministers do not work in a vacuum but must depend on their staff to deliver a high standard of performance.
The quality service initiative will mean having clearly understood quality standards, rigorous criteria for evaluating the quality and delivery of services and a clearly understood strategy for maintaining those standards over time. It also means having a system of redress, whereby administrative lapses may be traced back directly to the person or persons responsible — an important consideration in light of recent events. Given that there are about 30,000 non-industrial civil servants, any improvement in the overall quality of service is bound to yield tangible benefits.
None of this should be taken as an implicit criticism of the Civil Service and the many thousands who every day give an excellent service to the State. We all too often overlook this and take it for granted. As the Taoiseach said on Friday, 99 per cent of civil servants are doing a very good job. One of the aims of SMI is to ensure that this is raised to 100 per cent and that high standards are maintained across the board.
Second, Delivering Better Government takes up the question of devolving responsibility and accountability in the clearest possible terms. It has long been recognised that the framework set out in the Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924 is no longer satisfactory in defining where responsibility for particular matters lies. All political parties have long recognised that a Minister cannot possibly be held directly and personally responsible for everything that goes on within his or her Department, and it is ludicrous to suggest otherwise.
A great deal has changed in the 72 years since the 1924 Act was passed. The business of Government has grown out of all recognition. It is also considerably more complex. Today's economic and social challenges are ample testimony to how complex the issues facing Government have become. We also cannot any longer think only of a national dimension — issues are increasingly global requiring an international response. Our role in the European Union, which has been significant given our relative size, has added greatly to the business of Government. The particular commitment of the Department of Justice to its role in the Northern Ireland peace process has added enormously to that Department's workload. This has resulted in greatly increased demands on Ministers and their Departments.
The day when a Minister or any other single individual could be held responsible for all that is transacted within a Department of State is long gone. Reality has long dictated this; if Ministers of all Governments had not recognised this reality a long time ago, conducting the business of the State would have ground to a halt. What we must now do is face up to this reality and bring our outdated legislation into line with what happens in practice. Legislation must reflect reality. Until we amend the 1924 Act to reflect the needs of today, we will continue to have these nebulous debates about who is responsible and accountable.
However, it must be said that the Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924 is a substantial legal instrument which has served the country well over the past 70 years. Our entire system of governance is based on it. Drafted by the new Government during the early 1920s, in a time of civil war, the 1924 Act drew together into a coherent structure the chaotic mixture of Departments, offices, boards and agencies through which Ireland had been governed by the British. Government Ministers and officials at that crucial time in our history worked under immense pressure to mould a legislative basis for democratic Government in the new State which has stood the test of time.
The Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924 has not been substantially altered in relation to essential matters over the years. Most of the legislation directly amending the 1924 Act has been concerned with the creation of new Departments of State as the evolution of the Irish economy created greater and more complex demands on public administration. The amendment of the Act in 1939, for example, established a Department of Supplies which was charged with the maintenance of essential services and provisions during the Second World War. After the war, an amendment to the Act in 1946 established the Department of Health and Social Welfare. The Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Act, 1956 established the Department of Transport and Power and ten years later a further amendment provided for the creation of the Department of Labour.
However, the pace of change in the economy, in society and in the demands being made of public administration and governance means that we must move now to bring the organisation of public administration more up to date. This is particularly important in relation to the allocation of responsibility and the arrangements to provide for the accountability of those who exercise authority within the system.
If a particular Minister or civil servant commits a major blunder, the responsibility should start and finish there. It is only rational and fair that this should be the case. It is, and will remain, the Minister's responsibility to ensure that his or her Department has staff of the necessary calibre to carry out the various functions of the Department, but it is unreasonable to expect that every last individual will always perform to the highest standards at all times, especially when under pressure. Humanly we must make some allowance for a consideration such as this.
Every Minister must also endeavour to ensure that adequate management procedures are in place to run the Department in both an efficient and effective manner. To achieve this it is essential to have a framework within which responsibility and authority can be more clearly assigned. The proposed changes to the Ministers and Secretaries Act, as set out in Delivering Better Government, will take this into account and strike a fair balance between the authority and accountability of the Minister, on the one hand, and that of the Secretary and staff of the Department on the other.
In October, the Minister for Finance received the approval of the Government to arrange for the drafting of a Bill to amend the Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924. The Bill will put into law the changes which the Government, on the advice of a high level advisory group, has decided are needed to bring about modernisation and improvement in the organisation of the central Government. In particular, the new Bill is designed to provide for the allocation of responsibility and accountability within the various Departments of State. Essentially this will require the establishment of a new management structure for the Civil Service. The details of this were set out in Delivering Better Government published in May of this year. The Bill is intended to give effect to a new framework for devolving authority, responsibility and accountability from Ministers of the Government to secretaries of Departments of State. The new legislative proposals will enable a further devolution of responsibility within a Department. Under the secretary of a Department, those who manage the business of a Department will be provided with the necessary authority and will be required to account for the exercise of their powers and duties.
Third, Delivering Better Government addresses a wide range of staff management issues, in particular, performance management. Any system of performance management must give a fair and balanced assessment of individual members of staff, set out suitable incentives to motivate staff, and where necessary apply sanctions to those who perform consistently below standard. I am confident the introduction of such a system of performance management will go a long way towards highlighting the existence of areas where the potential for administrative error is unacceptably high. This will enable management to take any necessary corrective action before errors occur, measures which will be of benefit not just to the Department but to the individuals concerned.
However we look at it we cannot legislate for perfection. Lapses will occur. Our task is to minimise the risk of such lapses and make it easier to anticipate circumstances in which lapses are likely to occur. We must ensure that priorities are clearly established and understood, so that the critical aspects of a Department's activities receive priority attention from management and staff at all levels. The SMI is intended to bring this about, to create a culture in which the end products, the outputs and services produced by a Department, are kept clearly in view at all times by every layer of management. This should lead to greater objectivity in assessing a Department's performance and to the identification of indicators which provide a timely and accurate evaluation of performance.
The effective management of performance requires a change in culture and attitudes, not just the introduction of a scheme or a set of procedures. The kind of culture sought by Delivering Better Government is one which emphasises excellence at all levels, which constantly hammers home the message that the job is only well done when the customer, including the Minister, is completely satisfied.
It is very easy to lose perspective at a time like this and make the classic mistake of trying to generalise from the particular. Every situation is different and we must bear this in mind. No doubt, the inquiry the Minister has put in place into the lapse at her Department will elicit the facts and allow us to assess just how important the lesson is for other areas of public administration. Whatever the outcome, we must continue to use the SMI process to pursue a broad approach to good administration, a means of inculcating the disciplines needed to ensure a high standard of quality services. This process relates not just to the public but to services rendered from one part of the public service to another, as well as services to the Minister and to the Government. This inward aspect of quality service delivery by Departments will not be forgotten. The SMI and the programme of change set out in Delivering Better Government will take time to implement. It will also need the support of all parties extending over a period of years. This means sharing a common vision for the public service and working in concert to achieve the broad range of improvements we all believe are possible. It also means having a common perception of circumstances such as this, where an administrative lapse, serious as it may be, is not elevated out of all proportion. Lapses such as these should be seen in perspective, having regard to all the facts and the circumstances in which they occurred. It is then the task of management to take whatever corrective action may be necessary.
It could be argued that my reference to improvements and processes, legislative change and the visible assignment and clarification of responsibility and accountability is simply an attempt to portray the situation in the light most favourable to a colleague under attack, an attempt to deflect an attack on a Minister of my party towards persons unknown in the Civil Service. This is not the case. My party, in its infant years, gave this State a civil service system based on the Ministers and Secretaries Act which was not only suited to its time but which was preserved and carried into our day enduring values of incorruptibility and non-partisan services to Ministers and the public. I was proud to have been chosen by the Taoiseach to spearhead its renewal and to refocus the energies of its personnel in a manner which would best serve the public needs of our time and of the future. I reaffirm my commitment to that task.
What has caused this discussion today would appear to be a fall in some quarter from the standard of performance which we have come to expect and which we are entitled to expect from our civil servants. It may well be that the fault lies in the system or the culture in which the error occurred rather than with an individual civil servant. I have no wish to institute or participate in a witch hunt. That offers no solution but I see nothing wrong with putting in place a new legislative framework which makes clear to each and every civil servant what is expected of them in terms of job performance and what is unacceptable.
I accept the Government we replaced had signalled clearly its acknowledgement that changes were needed in the way our Departments and offices did their business by setting in train the SMI. In so doing it did a service to the State and to its civil servants. I am sorry to have noted in recent days signs of a retreat from the positive venture by those across the floor. I too spent time in Opposition and I know how difficult it is to forgo an opportunity to wrongfoot a successful Minister and how in the heat of political conflict we can all forget shared interests. In the pursuit of the Minister's reputation some of those opposite have lost sight of one interest that all Members must share: the need of our people at a time of challenge to have an efficient, effective and accountable public service and to have a clear vision of the role and responsibility of the individual politician who shapes policy for each Department. Whatever short-term benefit the Opposition may gain from doing so, it does no service to the State or to the Civil Service to gloss over the fact that the problem we are discussing highlights the lack of clear partition between those activities which a Minister personally directs, and should be liable to account for, and those which are or should be performed by others as part of their normal tasks.
There is a clear determination among the Opposition Front Bench Members to use the doctrine of ministerial accountability as a means of personalising the blame for this debacle and directing it towards the Minister, Deputy Owen. This can be based on only one of two approaches. First, that the Minister, like all Ministers, must carry the can to the ultimate degree for every error or performance failure in her Department. Their presence on the Opposition benches and dread of remaining there for another term has given the Opposition an interpretation of that doctrine which it did not live up to in Government.
