Mary Harney
Question:4 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the cost to date of implementing the recommendations of the Strategic Management Initiative, launched in May 1996. [3675/97]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Strategic Management Initiative.
The purpose of the Strategic Management Initiative is to make strategic management an integral part of the day-to-day work of the Departments. The issue of separate costing of individual activity affected by the SMI does not arise. However, if the Deputy has a specific query regarding costs, I will see to it that the relevant information is forwarded at an early date.
The Second Report of the Co-ordinating Group of Secretaries established under the SMI entitled Delivering Better Government, was launched in May 1996. This report sets out a comprehensive programme of change for the public service which is being undertaken as part of the ongoing work of Departments and offices. Costs arising are being met in that context.
A key part of implementing the SMI/Delivering Better Government is drawing up and publishing strategy statements setting out clear objectives for each Department and office. This process is now nearing completion in Departments and offices with statements of strategy either published or nearing publication. These set out organisational goals and objectives and the strategies and resources to achieve them.
Is the Minister of State aware of specific improvements that have occurred within the Civil Service as a result of this initiative? Could she explain the methods of evaluating what has been done?
I do not have lists of costs. Presumably the Deputy means improvements in costs.
And other improvements.
There is also the question of efficiencies and savings. The question was in respect of the cost to date of implementing the SMI to which I have replied. I will be delighted to reply to any specific questions. The strategic management initiative reaches across every Department and agency of the State. In this file I do not have all the details about any particular aspect of it. Costs and savings, value for money, efficiency in terms of management systems go back to the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act, 1993, and the requirements emanating from them. We also have the strategic management initiative Delivering Better Government which was launched in May 1996. If I am asked a question on a specific Department I will try to answer it but I cannot launch into the entire public service, Department by Department.
The Minister of State is like her Leader, one has to ask the right question.
If the Deputy has a specific query in mind in relation to a cost saving I would be pleased to answer it. Deputies will appreciate that to launch on the entire efficiency of the public service in terms of cost savings would take several hours.
We would not ask questions like that.
On the method of evaluating the initiative, will the Minister give a specific example which might give us an inkling of how this will work? It all seems vague. I appreciate the Minister is asking for a specific question but I suggest she give a specific example.
I can say a few words about savings if that is what the Deputy wants. Deputies will recall that Delivering Better Government published on 2 May 1996 recommended changes to existing financial management controls and procedures, among many other things, including a more appropriate public financial framework for setting public expenditure allocations and for delegating authority to Departments to manage resources allocated to them. Each Department was delegated the authority to manage its own resources.
The changes are designed to provide the basis for the improved financial performance required to underpin a results driven approach to the Civil Service generally. In particular the results driven approach of the SMI requires clarity in the outputs to be derived from public expenditure, it is designed to achieve better efficiency and service delivery and to place greater emphasis on achieving the best value for money. The cost of providing improved quality public services under the SMI must be met from efficiency gains and the new systems and structures being put in place in respect of public expenditure control and management, as envisaged in the document Delivering Better Government are specifically designed to achieve this.
The main areas of change proposed for financial management centres on the introduction of multi-annual budgetary process — Deputies will recall that on Monday last my colleague the Minister, Deputy Dukes, made an announcement in respect of the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications — are the delegation of financial authority both within Departments and through Department from the Department of Finance, improvements to the administrative budgets system and the introduction of financial management systems which reflect accrual accounting procedures. To implement the proposals in the report in these areas a financial management working group has been set up and assigned the task of developing and overseeing implementation of proposals. This working group has now developed an overall programme of action which will see these changes being implemented in the coming months.
These changes when taken in tandem with the publication of the departmental statements of strategy — not all have been submitted at this time — will result in better control of expenditure and the achieving of value for money through regular reviews of expenditure programmes. This process will take time to implement but we will begin to see the first benefits of this new approach this year with the introduction of multi-annual budgeting. The savings will come on stream this year.
The thrust of these developments is consistent with and develops the focus on value for money articulated in section 9 of the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act, 1993. This imposes a responsibility on Departments to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of their expenditure and to put in place systems, procedures and practices to enable them to do so.
The Comptroller and Auditor General may carry out examinations of expenditures of Departments to establish that this requirement is being met. So far 16 value for money examinations of expenditure programmes have been undertaken. I will not give details of them all but they can be circulated to the Deputy if she wishes.
The SMI approach is also based on the integration of a number of elements in the overall programme of change for the Civil Service. The initiatives outlined in relation to financial management systems must also be integrated in the overall framework for managing performance in the civil and public service. Changes in this area are being overseen by the working group on human resource management and the programme of action of the working groups is designed and integrated to underpin the approach to improve performance across the entire range of services provided by the civil and public services, including financial performance.
The Minister of State's file contained a fair amount of information, if not everything about the strategic management initiative.
We could talk all day on this topic.
It is very interesting. Since the Minister asked for a specific question I will ask a specific question. She stated with her usual categorical self assurance on 26 November that all Departments' statements would be ready and published prior to Christmas 1996. It is long past Christmas and even the Christmas sales are over. Why were all Departments' statements not completed and published? Under the strategic management initiative has anyone been dismissed for not completing statements and what action, if any, has the Minister taken in respect of the offending Departments who refused to obey?
I regret that not all Departments or agencies of State met the end of December deadline which had been pitched for them in relation to their strategy statement. Delays in publishing arose from different local circumstances. Each Department was able to produce what it thought was a credible excuse. Some offices were involved in EU Presidency work and Partnership 2000. The people involved in compiling the strategy statement were working on either the EU Presidency or Partnership 2000. That work is now complete and next week we will launch the strategy statement of the Department of the Taoiseach. Because of the Presidency commitment, the Department of the Taoiseach was one of those delayed. When challenged, each Department which did not meet its deadline gave me its reason. I do not accept it nor do I like it but there is little I can do about it. They will all be published in a matter of a few weeks, including those which did not meet the deadline. Some had good excuses, others less so.
This is disappointing news for those of us who continue to support the efforts of the Minister of State in this long-term issue. In January 1994 the Government decided the Taoiseach's Department should be the leader in this matter. Departments were asked to set out in their strategic management initiatives what they were doing and how they thought they could do it in a more efficient way. Three years later they do not know what they are doing and have not decided how they can to it in a better way. It augurs poorly for the strategic management initiative. Those responsible are trying to frustrate what this House is doing. If we are to get anywhere with this initiative we have to do it on an all-party basis. When the Minister of State gave me the information on 26 November she would have known the people, who obviously gave her incorrect information, were involved in the EU Presidency which was five months on at that time. People within the system have no interest in the strategic management initiative and what we have got to date are costs which are of no benefit to the House. I hope those in Departments who read the Official Report will see that this House is taking the initiative seriously, on an all-party basis. Three years after it was launched by the Department of the Taoiseach, that Department has not produced its statement. It is a poor show.
I accept the general chiding of the Deputy. I am disappointed that not all Departments met the deadline. I would not go as far as the Deputy when he said that three years on the lead Department, the Department of the Taoiseach, does not know what it is doing. The fact that it has not published does not make that statement. The Department and the Secretary of that Department are taking a lead role in the whole strategic management initiative on Delivering Better Government.
If the Department of the Taoiseach cannot produce a statement what will the Minister of State do with the other Departments?
The statement has been ready since mid-January but it was a month late. It will be launched next week when the Taoiseach is available and it is an important signal. It is ready but it has not been launched publicly.
It is two years late.
It is not two years late. Obviously Deputy Brennan, unlike Deputy Ahern, does not understand this is the second statement of strategy each Department has to produce. The first strategy statement was submitted long ago and this is the second statement. The first statement was not published but this one will be published. The second statement was to be ready by the end of December but I did not receive it until January. Approximately half the reports have been placed in the Oireachtas Library and the remainder will be placed there very shortly.
I agree it is not acceptable for a Department to miss a deadline. We hold the EU Presidency once every six years and the submission of the statement in January instead of December does not show a lack of commitment to the Strategic Management Initiative. It is intended to launch the report next week and Deputies will be pleased when they read it. I hope to have an opportunity to brief Deputy Ahern on this and other matters before the launch next week.
I thank Deputies for their continued support for the Strategic Management Initiative which was launched in January-February 1994 by the then Taoiseach, Deputy Albert Reynolds. There has been consistent all-party support for the thrust of the initiative and the proposed reform of the public service. It has also received excellent support to date from the public sector unions. The initiative sets out short, medium and long-term agendas and it is extremely important for us to send out a signal that there is all-party support for this reform programme.
Will the Minister agree that some Departments seem very reluctant to co-operate with her? It is extraordinary for her to outline the shortcomings without admitting her responsibility in this matter. Is she responsible for ensuring deadlines are met and that the initiative works and, if not, who is?
I was charged with political responsibility for the initiative by the Taoiseach more than two years ago. I accept my responsibility but I did not receive the statement until the middle of January. One must adopt a reasonable approach to these matters. The report will be launched next week. The delay does not give a good signal but this is not a measure of the enthusiasm of public or civil servants in the Department of the Taoiseach for the initiative. There is a broad range of Departments and State agencies and the commitment to "Delivering Better Government" ranges from enormous enthusiasm in many Departments to compliance in one or two Departments.
And boredom in others.
I am not including the Department of the Taoiseach in this, but Deputies will win no bouquets for guessing the Departments to which I am referring.
Name them.
One or two Departments will have to be dragged screaming and roaring into adopting the ethos of "Delivering Better Government".
Which Departments?
I will have another opportunity to name them.
Is one the subject of questions today?
No. We are dealing with costs today but Deputies are straying from this matter.
Why did the Departments not launch the report?
The Deputies asked me to be straight on the matter and they will realise that the level of enthusiasm and compliance differs in Departments and State agencies. One has only to look at what is being done by the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social Welfare to see the level of enthusiasm. They are way ahead of other Departments and agencies and did not wait for the report to be published to point the way forward.
That is because Deputy Woods was responsible for the Department of Social Welfare for ten years.
I am not sure that is the reason.
The Department has admitted it.
There is a different level of enthusiasm in various Departments but they are all complying with the initiative. The public sector unions support the process. A co-ordinating group, which includes representatives of the private and public sectors, has been set up, while working groups are dealing with the various areas. The programme for 1997 has been set and action is being taken. There are different levels of enthusiasm in Departments and agencies but they will all achieve the same aim at the end of the day.