John Bruton
Question:5 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of his Department in deepening and strengthening the SMI process through the civil and public service; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17452/99]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - Strategic Management Initiative.
Ruairí Quinn
Question:6 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach to make a statement on his address at the launch of the latest phase of the Strategic Management Initiative in Dublin Castle on 22 July last; if, arising from his comments, he will say what specific proposals the Government intends to make to deal with the problem of inequality within the Civil Service; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17743/99]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 and 6 together.
At the SMI launch on 22 July, I made a number of announcements on the achievements of the SMI to date and the future work programme. The key theme of the launch was "Delivering Quality Public Service – responding to the needs of a changing environment". The launch focused on a number of initiatives designed to improve the functioning of the Civil Service and to enhance its capacity to deliver high quality services effectively. Most of these initiatives build on the reports of working groups which were set up under the SMI in recent years. Briefly these are: deepening the quality customer service initiative; introducing an action programme for regulatory reform; extending the scope of freedom of information legislation; new financial management systems; developing human resource management issues, including performance management and recruitment; and promoting gender equality. Details of these can be seen in the documents contained in the packs which were circulated at the launch. I have arranged for these to be made available in the Dáil Library.
In my speech that day, I referred to the progress that has been made in recent years in the reform of the public service. I also highlighted the need to continue widening and strengthening the programme of reform throughout the civil and public service. To this end, a number of measures have been taken to ensure that this process is managed effectively. Briefly these are that the SMI implementation group has been broadened to include Departments with large numbers of employees and Departments with responsibility for the wider public sector. At its first meeting last week, which I attended, the implementation group considered a work programme which includes measures to progress the deepening of the SMI, based on this sectoral approach. The liaison group on widening the SMI to the public service last met in July and is due to meet again early this month. The group comprises representatives from those Departments with responsibility for the various sectors and exists to monitor and progress the SMI modernisation process in the wider public service. It reports directly to the implementation group.
Central to these reforms is the effective management of performance. The Government has decided that Ministers and Secretaries General should proceed immediately to develop systems of performance management suited to the business needs of the different sectors. This process will be overseen by the implementation group.
With regard to the specific issue of equality in the Civil Service, I highlighted the need for more to be done to address this issue. The main problem is the dearth of women in senior management grades and, despite the best intentions, the lack of progress made in redressing this imbalance. To this end, the Government in July of this year approved a package of measures which include: the development and adoption of a new equality policy to be drafted by a high level equality group; a programme of affirmative action in the areas of recruitment, placement and mobility, training and development, promotion, work and family responsibilities, language and sexual harassment and policy delivery; the adoption of strategic objective setting at departmental level, including the setting of increasingly specific equality goals, to be achieved over a stated period of time; and the putting in place of new equality structures, locally and centrally, to support implementation of the new policy.
The Minister for Finance, in his address at the launch, stated that additional resources will be deployed in the equality area and the full report on gender imbalance in the Irish Civil Service, produced by the Institute of Public Administration, will be published shortly. Following discussion of this issue at the SMI implementation group meeting last week, it is expected that the high level equality group will have its first meeting in the near future to begin work on these issues.
Would the Taoiseach agree that one of the major areas of difficulty in public administration is where a topic is the responsibility of more than one Department and that if one is seeking areas where the greatest delays occur or where the greatest problems in getting accountability occur, it is in those which cover more than one Department?
I would.
Arising from that, will the Taoiseach indicate why Government Departments have been so slow in using section 12 of the Public Service Management Act, 1997, which provides for interdepartmental co-operation structures to be established? Is he aware that only one Minister has made use of section 12, namely, the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, and that all other Ministers recently admitted that they have not made use of the section, which was passed by the House specifically to establish structures to overcome this sort of difficulty? Why is it that all Ministers, other than the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, have been so slow to make use of legislation that was passed by the House? If we pass legislation and Government does not use it, we are wasting our time.
I have said on a number of occasions, and I will not contradict myself, that section 12 is a good measure. Early in September 1997 I ensured the legislation introduced by the Government of which Deputy Bruton was a member could be used. The Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs is using it and I know that those involved in the children area are considering using it. They are successfully moving forward with the interdepartmental group working at interdepartmental level. Some Ministers and departmental officials find that the interdepartmental committees work quite well. However, using section 12 of the Public Service Management Act, 1997, is a better way to operate because it includes a statutory responsibility. Co-ordination is not mandatory but I increasingly believe it should be used. It is being considered in a number of areas. The Ministers of State with responsibility in the areas of social inclusion, children's issues and drugs issues, Deputies Flood and Fahey, are effectively co-ordinating on a cross-departmental basis. There has been some discussion about whether we should extend that. The fact that this is provided for on the Statute Book meant that Departments started using the interdepartmental groups more effectively, which used not to be the case to any great degree. I will not argue against it. I still believe that using section 12 of the Public Service Management Act on a statutory basis across Departments is probably a better way of progressing.
Is accountability not the key issue? If you do not use the statute to provide for interdepartmental co-operation, you do not have accountability? Is it not the case that the easy way out for any Department that does not want to be properly accountable is to continue with the old system where they can always blame somebody else? It is only if they use section 12 that that excuse is denied them. Does the Taoiseach not agree that it is, two years after the event, an administrative scandal that no Department, apart from the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs, has used this section? Does he remember how long it took to get that legislation through? Does he recall the amount of Civil Service time and other time devoted to its drafting and preparation and, two years later, it is being used by only one Department? Surely this is something that deserves condemnation from the Taoiseach not the sort of half justification he is giving to it now.
I do not believe Deputy Bruton should get carried away about it. If they were all using it, that would not make a lot of difference.
Only one of them is using it.
I am not justifying that, I am saying that some Departments should use it more. Interdepartmental groups can and do work and the section should not be required at all if they work successfully. However, the practice over the years has been that they do not do so in all cases. I have seen interdepartmental groups working very successfully on many issues. This year, for example, a great deal of work was done in preparation for the Berlin and Cologne summits and Agenda 2000.
That is different, that is not the same.
There are interdepartmental groups working together—
The Taoiseach is talking about an entirely different thing.
I am not. In the areas of children – to which I referred earlier, which affects approximately six Departments – and social inclusion, there is a case for using that section. I have informed Departments of that and I believe it will be used more in the future. It is already being used by Deputy Dermot Ahern's Department and it is being considered by a number of others. Departments have been encouraged to use it. I am not arguing against it. Where Departments are working across the lines they should use it and, increasingly, they will.
In respect of the matter that has just been the subject of discussion, I agree with Deputy Bruton. As the Minister who introduced the legislation in question, I was acutely aware of the need for section 12 and the inherent resistance to it from various line Departments. The latter will only be changed if the head of Government directs or if there is a Cabinet decision that the mechanism be used. Ultimately, therefore, the responsibility falls on the Taoiseach's shoulders. Commentary about the desirability of interdepartmental groups and how they work in relation to Presidency matters or European Union issues is simply evading the issue and I urge the Taoiseach to exercise his responsibilities as Taoiseach.
The Taoiseach said in his formal reply that extending the Freedom of Information Act was being examined. What does he mean by that? Is he aware of unscripted comments made by his colleague, the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Martin, at a conference in Cork last Friday night when he expressed concerns about the restrictions the Freedom of Information Act imposed upon decision making processes in Government. I was not there when these remarks were made – they were conveyed accurately to me – but the Minister indicated to the assembled audience of academics, in the main, and senior civil servants, that the operation of the current Freedom of Information Act prevents, for example – and this was the phrase used – a brainstorming session where different options would be put down on paper and that there would be a difficulty subsequently in arriving at a conclusion. If that reflects Government thinking, and the word "if" is carefully chosen, what kind of extension of the scope of the Freedom of Information Act does the Government have in mind?
In reply to Deputy Quinn's first question, there was not any resistance to the REACH programme initiative nor to looking at the children area and the interdepartmental groups working together on the basis that they may use section 12. However, it can be extended. It will be used in suitable areas; it will not be just thrown aside. The point has been made that if it is used there will be more accountability.
Will they use it?
Where there are suitable areas, but currently there is no area where people are refusing to deal with it.
Wait until they get to the end point.
The only real issue at present is how effectively it is operated in the children area. On the Freedom of Information Act, I am not sure if it is announced yet, but there are some additional areas to which it will be extended in the months ahead, some new agencies including some semi-State bodies. While the Government has no difficulty with the Freedom of Information Act a number of problems have arisen, which could not have been foreseen at the outset, and which the group responsible for monitoring it has highlighted. Those problems will have to be examined in due course. People have devised major abuses of the Act and they will all have to be examined. I am not talking about journalists or politicians, but costly abuses have occurred where Departments are being tied up in bureaucratic knots and an enormous amount of staff resources—
Are you suggesting by themselves? If it does not include journalists and politicians, who does that leave?
Members of the public and private companies, and it is also being used by a number of commercial interests to try to decipher information that could be used against competitors, and there are other areas too. These are issues which could not have been foreseen and these areas have to be examined. There are a number of other less important areas but already, in a very short period, abuses are fairly evident. They will have to be looked at in due course but that does not mean, at the same time, we will consider extending it. I am not aware of the matter the Minister, Deputy Martin, was discussing.
Since the Taoiseach has offered substantially new and perhaps startling information on the floor of the House, and I welcome his frankness in so doing, I invite him to ensure that one of his Ministers will bring to the relevant committee of this House the concerns in substance that he has just articulated in summary. Members of this House should know of the unforeseen difficulties the Taoiseach has now described as should members of the committee which represents all sides of the House, so that a legislative response, if such is needed, can be a consensual response following full consultation with the public at large. If there are unforeseen difficulties of a dangerous nature in respect of competitive pressures or whatever, the House is entitled to be informed. I invite the Taoiseach to consider that and in due course come back to the Houses of the Oireachtas so that in the first instance we can share the experience and then examine the best way to proceed to try to address it and then make progress together to make whatever amendments might be necessary.
As Deputy Quinn is aware, the system operates so that it is not directly Ministers who make the call on FOI issues; there is a designated official. I have asked the committee of officials to prepare a comprehensive list of the various issues, some of which will be minor, some major. When the Government has received that list we can then arrange for it to be made available to a committee of the House.
May I proceed on this? The Taoiseach has made a fairly serious statement, as I hear it. Will he confirm that he will designate a Minister to come to a relevant committee of this House to have this matter raised formally and properly so that it can be discussed, and there will not be just a general communication to all Members of this House?
No. When we have the report on the matters there will not be any reason not to highlight them.
The Taoiseach will take it to a specific committee and it will be addressed there?
Yes.
Is it not the case that one company has been responsible for more freedom of information applications than virtually the entire general public? Is that more or less the case?
More or less the case.
This is something out of which oaks grow. This is on the public record, it is just a riddle. Will the Taoiseach tell the House about the study prepared by Fitzpatrick Associates on the progress of the Strategic Management Initiative, with particular regard to pay issues? Is the Taoiseach aware that the associates in question said that if the Strategic Management Initiative continued to be, as they put it, "mandarin led"– and they were not referring to oranges – it would not work as far as pay was concerned and that it was necessary for the Government, if it was to maintain industrial peace, to develop new gain-sharing techniques where teams of people working in the public service would be specifically financially rewarded for exemplary team performance? What progress has been made in this area? Does the Taoiseach agree with the recommendation from Fitzpatrick Associates that there should be a performance related pay preparedness audit done in all Departments to indicate how well their current management systems are prepared for the use of gain-sharing techniques if such were decided upon because there would not be much point deciding on these if the management techniques did not exist to use them?
That really comes into the next question when we will be talking about the ongoing public service discussions with the public service section of the Congress of Trade Unions and the Department to see if we can find a performance pay initiative. Many models, including the one the Deputy mentioned, are being examined in that, but no conclusions have yet been made. Much valuable work on this has been done since the beginning of the year and many models have been examined. Performance pay is important in the public service and the Civil Service. Some model should be found. It will become increasingly difficult to hold on to quality civil and public servants under the current system. That has been an issue for some years and it will become an even bigger issue. Some of the recommendations of Fitzpatrick Associates are important and are being examined but I will come back to that in the next question.
This matter is of substantial concern and the Taoiseach has just indicated the extent of that concern. Will he agree that there is a necessity, first and foremost, to have a wider public debate about this than that which is currently taking place? We had the Hay MSL initial survey and consultancy study that was initiated back in 1997 and which was followed up by the Fitzpatrick study to which Deputy Bruton referred, none of which has taken place in the public domain. There is no awareness among the wider public that there are detailed discussions going on in relation to either the four clusters of analysis or evaluation or the 17 criteria that relate to them. The Taoiseach is no doubt aware of the widespread divergence of opinion among the various public sector unions on this matter.
Does the Taoiseach agree that to a certain extent the public sector unions – and this is not in any way a discredit to them – are negotiating between themselves and are accountable to nobody else but themselves on this matter? While not wishing to derail, slow down or take away from the need for such negotiations to conclude, this is an internal private conversation, a dialogue concerning both sides with nobody else being represented at the table. Therefore, what plans, if any, does the Government have to ensure that this particularly crucial debate is open to a wider audience so that different views can be expressed other than the internal parties, as both sides are beneficiaries to any system that might be ultimately agreed?
Maybe if I take Questions Nos. 7 to 18—
Maybe if the Taoiseach were not to take them. We only have two or three minutes left.
Leave it over?
Is it agreed to leave these questions over?
I do not mind.
Next Tuesday.
(Dublin West): I know the Taoiseach was talking about the public service, but on the issue of partnership I ask the Taoiseach—
That question has been deferred until next week. If the Deputy has a question it should be in the context of Questions Nos. 5 and 6. The matter of partnership is—
(Dublin West): I want to ask the Taoiseach why a company employed by the State—
That is not relevant to Questions Nos. 5 and 6.
(Dublin West): But it relates to the public sector in the sense that—
We are on the strategic management initiative. The Deputy cannot bring in a subject. The Deputy should put down a separate question on this. It is not related even indirectly to the subject under discussion.
(Dublin West): There are a few minutes left.
If the Deputy has a supplementary question relevant to Questions Nos. 5 and 6—
I do not mind.
(Dublin West): If the Taoiseach does not mind replying, should this company have its contract put on ice until it deals and negotiates with the workers rather than have workers being thrown in jail for insisting on straight, direct employment with major contractors in the building industry and rooting out abuses?
Does Deputy Higgins find it strange that the company concerned is having a dispute outside its gates with people who are not its employees? Who are these people and why are they outside the gates? Why are they forcing a dispute with the company? Who do they represent and what is their real agenda?
(Dublin West): We are dealing with building workers. There are hundreds of them in this city and they have had a very long struggle to have the basic minimum of decency as well as the entitlement to pay PAYE, incidentally, as of right rather than being forced into the black economy.
The Deputy is making a statement.
(Dublin West): Does the Taoiseach agree that those building workers who have brought about this state of decency against the intense opposition of sub-contractors and some main contractors deserve the support of the State?
The matter the Deputy is raising has nothing to do with the questions before the House. He should consider putting down a separate question on these matters. That concludes Taoiseach's Question Time. We now proceed to Priority Questions.