Vol. 490 No. 7
1 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the most recent developments in relation to the implementation of the strategic management initiative; if the proposals to implement a system of performance related remuneration in the public service have been finalised; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10518/98]
2 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will provide an update on recent progress regarding the strategic management initiative; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10523/98]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
Good progress continues to be made under the strategic management initiative, the programme of change in the public service. As set out in Delivering Better Government, the key objective is the achievement of an excellent service for the Government and the public as customers and clients at all levels, building on the good service provided at present.
The preparation of new strategy statements by Departments and offices was a key requirement of the Public Service Management Act, 1997, which came into operation on 1 September last year. As I announced on 1 May, the new statements of all Departments and of offices under their aegis have now been laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and are being published.
In addition, as the Deputy is aware, the Freedom of Information Act, 1997, came into effect on 21 April last. A considerable effort has been put into preparing to meet the requirements of the Act which will result in major changes in the culture and practices of the Civil Service. Taken with the publication of the strategy statements, a new climate of openness and transparency in the conduct of official business has been created which is unprecedented.
The pursuit of quality customer service is at the heart of the change programme. The Quality Customer Action Plans of Departments and Offices, launched towards the end of 1997, are now in operation. A system to monitor and benchmark progress across the Civil Service is currently being drawn up to ensure that the momentum is maintained in this important initiative.
On 19 February last, following consultation with the Opposition parties, I announced the establishment of the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Strategic Management Initiative and Deputy Quinn is a member of that committee. I said then it was entirely appropriate that the Oireachtas, with whom the Civil Service at official level is so deeply engaged, should be more actively involved in the process, particularly now at the stage of implementation.
Apart from the new legislation I mentioned, up until now most of the effort in the strategic management initiative has been devoted to developing the proposals in the key areas of Delivering Better Government. This effort has been harnessed through the various working and other groups which were established. Arising from their recommendations, the position is that the SMI Implementation Group, which is driving the change programme in the Civil Service, has prioritised four areas for action this year. These are in human resource management, financial management, information technology and regulatory reform. There is a very wide agenda for change in the management of human resources, with the emphasis on giving more authority and responsibility to line managers in managing and developing their staff.
An effective performance management system is a vital part of modern human resource management and central to the improvement we seek in the delivery of quality services. Consultants were engaged last year to advise and assist in designing an appropriate system for the Civil Service. As part of their report, the consultants advised that successful implementation of the performance management system will require that issues such as organisation of work and reward-recognition be addressed. The report is being considered by the SMI Implementation Group prior to submission to the co-ordinating group and the Government. Arrangements for implementing the proposed performance management system will involve consultations with the Civil Service unions in accordance with the participative approach provided for in Partnership 2000.
In relation to financial management, changes are necessary to support the SMI process, in particular, to underpin a results-driven approach to managing the public sector in a modern, competitive economy. Earlier this year the Government took decisions on administrative budgets and multi-annual budgets. Further proposals on the delegation of financial authority and on a new model of financial management will be submitted shortly to the implementation group. As I mentioned, proposals on information technology and regulatory reform will also be considered later in line with the priorities set for 1998 by the implementation group.
Chapter 10 of Partnership 2000 sets out the framework for implementing the change programme in the public service. A key feature is the 2 per cent pay increase that is dependent on the achievement of verifiable results in each Department and office in implementing its action plan on a partnership basis between management, staff and unions in support of the changes. A General Council Report, No. 1331, has now been agreed providing for the setting up of Partnership committees comprising management, unions and staff representatives. Departments and offices will now establish Partnership committees in each organisation to develop the action plans for change.
The National Centre for Partnership was established arising from the commitment in Chapter 9 of Partnership 2000. The centre has consulted widely with management and unions in the public sector to identify the level of partnership existing in the workplace and to promote discussion of partnership at local level.
The changes already effected are significant. The changes still to come will be equally challenging. I am satisfied with progress to date and am determined that no momentum will be lost in progressing the change programme.
Will the Taoiseach indicate the significant changes to which he referred? How does he perceive them as someone who has been in Government on numerous occasions?
Delivering quality Government is the best change in the front line. Much of the earlier work of Delivering Better Government was about preparation and involved various groups. These groups were cumbersome in many ways. The co-ordinating group of secretaries led from 2 May 1996 and the co-ordinating general group included the social partners and outside academics. Since their work was completed, the specialist, general and implementation working groups have worked effectively.
Since the beginning of this year, the emphasis has been on making the system work. The various commitments of Partnership 2000 which are now in place, together with the quality management initiative, are providing a better focus. It is also more interesting for civil servants as they are directly involved in implementing something real.
I thank the Taoiseach for his comprehensive reply which I will study in some detail. He referred to productivity agreements under Partnership 2000 and the 2 per cent to the public service. Is there an agreed method of measurement of productivity for awarding this 2 per cent or will it be an automatic increase conceded by management without any tangible evidence of productivity? If so, will the Government, when it settles the internal claims and demands in the various Departments, under the auspices of openness, transparency and freedom of information, inform the public of the terms of the productivity agreement, how its measurement was arrived at and how it will be policed?
I assure the Deputy the increase will not be given across the board without any tangible measurement of productivity. I have insisted that the opposite will be the case. Hay Consultants, who have carried out most of the surveys in State and semi-State bodies and the Civil Service, have brought forward a report which raises a number of issues, including productivity recognition and how rewards should operate. The implementation group is considering these issues. Before a productivity agreement is reached, trade unions must understand that real change and participation should arise from that mechanism. Otherwise, it will be a hopeless exercise. Whatever arises from the implementation of an agreement, which will shortly be brought to Government, must reward people for change and involvement.
Will the public be told? How will it measure this change?
Hay consultants have put forward a number of recommendations which have not been brought to Government, although I am aware of what is in the report. It is difficult to find a mechanism. However, it is possible, as can be seen from the experience in other countries. However, too often, our productivity agreements applied to everybody, regardless of whether there was any productivity. This was discredited in the 1970s and became known as bogus productivity. We must design a system of meaningful productivity and those who are genuinely involved should be given some reward — otherwise an agreement will never be introduced.
Will the Taoiseach agree that, while the recent improvements in the telecommunications systems in the House are welcome, in order to improve the performance of Parliament there is need to consider library and research facilities available to Members since improvements in that area would result in the more smooth and efficient running of the Houses of the Oireachtas and committees of the Houses? Is that matter under examination?
That is not included in this question, but if the Deputy wishes I will raise the matter with the Minister for Finance.
Nobody will disagree with the objectives of improving the quality of service for Government. Is the Taoiseach aware that with the extra demands caused by, among other things, the Freedom of Information Act, according to a number of sectors in the public service a 25 per cent increase in staffing is needed if they are to maintain even their current productivity level? In the context of the strategic management initiative, is there a plan to take into account that extra pressure by way of extra resources or staffing?
I do not know where the Deputy got that statistic. He seemed to imply it came from some committee. I assure the House and secretary generals that an increase of 25 per cent in staffing is not envisaged in the short, medium or long-term. Additional pressures arise in implementing the strategic management initiative, the Freedom of Information Act and some of the initiatives in Partnership 2000, but they will be met by present staff resources. Priorities must be followed and old procedures may need to be changed, but we cannot afford huge staff increases.
