Enda Kenny
Question:3 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of those aspects of the strategic management initiative applicable to his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11474/03]
Ceisteanna – Questions. - Strategic Management Initiative.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:4 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if his Department has carried out, or plans to carry out, a review of the relevance and effectiveness of the strategic management initiative in so far as his Department is concerned. [15758/03]
I propose to answer Questions Nos. 3 and 4 together.
My Department has developed significant expertise and experience in all aspects of the public service modernisation programme through its lead role in the strategic management initiative since its inception. The Department has a dedicated internal change management unit and is developing the capability of its internal support services through the recruitment and training of expert staff and the implementation of modern management processes and information systems. I am satisfied substantial progress has been made to date in implementing the strategic management initiative within my Department.
To give some examples, a customer action plan for 2001-04, informed by the results of customer surveys, has been published and made available on my Department's website. To help ensure an excellent service to our customers, my Department will also participate in a pilot for the new quality customer service charter. My Department has been involved in providing central co-ordination and impetus to the information society and e-public service agenda. Internally, it has prepared an e-strategy and is engaged in a number of e-Government projects, notably the e-Cabinet model which it is planned to introduce during 2003. Work is ongoing on a number of human resource management initiatives, including the reorientation of the human resource function, the upgrading of training facilities and the develop ment of an integrated human resource strategy and staff development plan. The human resource strategy will support the objectives of the Department identified in its strategy statement and business plans.
The performance management and development system underpins this strategy. A gender equality policy for the Department was agreed as part of the partnership process and circulated to all staff and most of my departmental staff have received equality awareness training. My Department is among the leading Departments in implementing the new management information framework and a new financial management computer system was introduced in July 2002. The approach used by my Department has since been adopted as a model by a number of other Departments. My Department is also one of the lead Departments in implementing the new human resource management system chosen for the Civil Service, which went live in the Department in March of this year.
A key mechanism to verify that targets are robust and to monitor the effectiveness of the implementation of the strategic management initiative in my Department is the performance verification group, which comprises management, trade union and independent members. In relation to the current performance verification process, an action plan for my Department has been developed establishing performance indicators regarding the implementation of the provisions on co-operation with flexibility and ongoing change set out in Sustaining Progress.
The Department's action plan has been informed by the service-wide evaluations of the strategic management initiative which were undertaken recently. Within my Department, the modernisation programme is subject to regular review. It is monitored on a regular basis by the change management working group, which is a sub-group of the partnership committee, the partnership committee itself and the management advisory committee, where it is a standing agenda item at their fortnightly meetings. Progress regarding modernisation is also outlined in my Department's annual progress report. To date, I am satisfied with my Department's contribution to achieving the Government's objectives through the implementation of its strategy, including the modernisation objective.
I refer the Taoiseach to the studies on the SMI carried out by the NESC and PA Consulting, both of which found serious deficiencies in the way in which public projects are managed by Government on behalf of the people in terms of value for money and control of public expenditure. The NESC said that neither Government of the traditional kind, nor social partnership as it currently exists, are capable of meeting the key challenges.
Is it not a failure of management to find the lunacy at the Red Cow roundabout, or the mad cow roundabout as it is known, whereby the Luas is to cross the busiest intersection in the country, or to find a major project like the Dublin Port tunnel which is incapable of taking thousands of trucks per day? Surely, therefore, responsibility for the failure of the strategic management initiative in managing major public projects must be placed firmly at the door of the Government.
Deputy Kenny is either ignoring what the strategic management initiative is about or is talking about projects that are being managed by the National Roads Authority, the local authority system or engineers from the Department of the Environment and Local Government—
The Taoiseach is passing the buck.
These are the bodies responsible for the matters referred to by the Deputy. If he wants to put down a question about them he should do so—
(Interruptions).
Please allow the Taoiseach to speak.
I am here to answer for my Department's role in the strategic management initiative. The PA Consulting report on the strategic management initiative has nothing to do with—
We also have the findings of the NESC.
Deputy Kenny asked me to report on the implementation of those aspects of the strategic management initiative applicable to my Department, and that is what I am doing.
If the mad cow roundabout is not part of the strategic management initiative then I do not know what is.
I ask Deputy Kenny to please allow the Taoiseach to answer.
I could get into debating the mad cow roundabout, the Red Cow roundabout or whatever cow the Deputy wishes to talk about. However, as far as the Dublin Port tunnel is concerned, I am aware of the issue and I hope nobody changes the current height restriction to cater for a few large trucks which have bedevilled my own community for years. I have a very simple view on whether trucks of any height or size should be allowed to plough through the area if they wish, and the Minister for Transport, Deputy Brennan, is following that view. The height restriction is applicable and people cannot bring any height of truck they like into the country. If people do not wish to bring their vehicles here they need not bother. That would not worry me one iota.
The NESC report pointed out that 67% of public servants were unhappy with the way that underperformance was being dealt with, while the partnership agreement contains vague commitments on value for money and improved efficiency and productivity. Does the Taoiseach believe that the SMI, and the Government, are in a position to achieve more measurable and effective results in terms of the benchmarking awards, for example, to which public servants are properly entitled, but in respect of which there is a responsibility to deliver more measurable, real and effective services to the public who pay for them?
I agree and that is included in Sustaining Progress, which moves on from the objectives of earlier partnership programmes. Action plans, a verification process, agreed targets, and an input by staff through trades union representatives are correct measures, and increases should be based upon performance and delivery under these measures. I am opposed to the idea of these systems being put in place and increases being given regardless of whether people work them or not. There was considerable debate in setting up the last programme about how to verify service improvements, but this programme includes agreed verification mechanisms. They are not one-sided mechanisms designed by management or the Government. There is an agreed mechanism to deal with what has to change, what is to be delivered by the change management unit, a verification system and areas in which the management side wants to see progress.
An obvious area in this regard is the increased use of technology in Departments and other flexibilities management is seeking to secure. This is included in Sustaining Progress and the pay increases provided for will be based on verification of these aspects by a group which includes members from the trade union group. That is the correct approach as I do not believe the State can afford to pay out large sums of money which, while they may be correctly awarded, are given without any return. The entire agreement is predicated on this.
The partnership agreement, Sustaining Progress, makes reference to a report on the implementation of the strategic management initiative in the Civil Service and other sectors. It states that while it has led to better services for the public and an improved workplace for staff, progress has been variable within and between sectors. The report specifically refers to clear variables in terms of performance. Will the Taoiseach identify the sectors that have not made progress?
A detailed section of the agreement also deals with the strategic management initiative and industrial relations issues in the health services. Will the Taoiseach identify the progress made in this area?
We are dealing with Questions Nos. 3 and 4.
Does the Taoiseach agree that funding shortfalls and the continuing failure by the Government to invest in this sector will lead to further industrial action in the future, which will be a direct consequence of the failure by the Government to meet public need?
The Deputy's last questions deal with the national health strategy and should be directed to the Minister. The PA report on the implementation of the strategic management initiative indicated that there were still deficiencies and that more attention should be paid to customer service plans, the use of technology and a change agenda. The report suggests how this can be monitored and recommends that a Secretaries General group should be actively engaged, as is now the case, and that various committee structures be established to ensure that change occurs. It also recommends the involvement of a considerable number of civil servants in the process and that meetings should be focused and not too lengthy. These initiatives are working.
From the point of view of civil servants, these developments mean that their jobs are more interesting, they have a greater awareness of developments and they have an input into their departmental plan. I have addressed many seminars dealing with this issue and the feedback from civil servants is that they consider they are more involved and active and that they have a say, although they would like it to be greater.
The report also shows that the Civil Service is far better managed and more effective than it was a decade ago. It points out that the modernisation programme has undoubtedly been the critical factor and driver of change in Departments and that more has been achieved on the outward facing issues of openness and transparency. The report encourages greater efforts on this aspect.
The report also identifies what should be done in terms of human resource management and financial management systems. The latter was modelled on my Department and commenced last June. Many other Departments are using that model. The report also provides data on information systems and the modernisation programme, and includes the recommendation that the present programme be repositioned.
Not all Secretaries General serve on the Secretaries General group, but its membership is rotated. It is the committee that drives change through for civil servants and although I am not saying it has come to the end of what the PA evaluations contained, progress has certainly been made and the initiatives that have been taken are good. Individual civil servants feel that they have a more meaningful role in, and a better input into, their jobs and also know that their work is now monitored in a different way than it was previously. The strategic management initiative, which is an effective system, has been running now for about 11 years. Each time civil servants evaluate their work they change it; they are not sticking to the one plan but have changed several times over the last 11 years.
I hope that what the Taoiseach says is right but what is the evidence for the statement that the Civil Service is managed better now than it was ten years ago? There is certainly a greater resort to consultants but what is the tangible evidence that the service generally is better managed? Could the Taoiseach draw the attention of the House to a single, tangible, meaningful achievement of SMI? What is the correlation between SMI and benchmarking?
I could give many examples but the best one is public opinion. A major survey carried out last year showed the public's reaction to the Civil Service in a set of questionnaires, based on independent criteria, which sought the public's opinion in all areas. I cannot remember the figures off the top of my head but there was almost 90% satisfaction with public services and that was across the Revenue Commissioners, the Department of Social and Family Affairs, line Departments and my own Department. The public was asked about service, courtesy and deliverability and civil servants came out very well against previous similar reports. That survey, which is in the public domain, was the third such survey, carried out on a three year or 30 month basis, covering a range of issues.
The correlation between SMI, modernisation and benchmarking, is that under the change element in the agreement on benchmarking, benchmarking payments cannot be obtained unless one has delivered on the change agenda and on what has been verified by the verification committees. The incentive is for staff to deliver on what management has asked them to do on the change agenda and they have responded well to that as they did in the last two programmes where there was something for them to change.
On improvements, if one were to go on public opinion alone, based on survey findings, the turnaround and the speed with which letters and other correspondence are being dealt now is far more efficient in terms of time lags. The use of technology which has come out of change management in Departments is now probably as good as it has been anywhere. Departments and civil servants have genuinely taken to the various Government and other initiatives, such as e-government, now in operation so that has worked extremely well.
While the Taoiseach acknowledged the variables to which I referred in my earlier question, can he detail for the House those sectors where progress has not been made? That is the specific question to which I want an answer. Will he point out those sectors where progress has not been made in this House this afternoon?
Under the SMI, areas that are not delivering on the change management programme and the modernisation programme must be highlighted and the best way of doing that is to use the one stick that is held over them, namely that they will not get the benchmarking awards.