Eamon Gilmore
Question:1 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach when he expects to receive the report from the OECD on reform of the public service; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14621/08]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Public Service Reform.
Enda Kenny
Question:2 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach when the OECD review of the public service will be completed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17129/08]
Enda Kenny
Question:3 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the remit of the task force he has appointed to implement the recommendations of the OECD report on the public service; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20808/08]
Enda Kenny
Question:4 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the structures in place in his Department to support the implementation of the OECD report on the public service; the cost in each case; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20809/08]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:5 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the remit and membership of the task force to develop a new action plan for the public service of the 21st century; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20939/08]
Joan Burton
Question:6 Deputy Joan Burton asked the Taoiseach if he is considering the addition of members to the task force from relevant civil society groups; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21973/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive, together.
On 28 April, I launched Towards an Integrated Public Service, the review of the Irish public service by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD. This report, which benchmarks the public service in Ireland against other comparable countries and makes recommendations as to the further direction of public service reform, is the culmination of over 16 months of extensive consultation and analysis by the OECD. It is an authoritative assessment of the Irish public service which confirms the many strengths of the system and identifies challenges which need to be addressed.
While there are a number of initiatives in place which are already addressing many of the challenges identified by the OECD, I intend to pursue a comprehensive programme of renewal which integrates these initiatives and moves us towards a world-class public service equipped to meet the challenges of today and tomorrow.
Last month, I announced the appointment of a task force to develop an action plan for the public service to give detailed consideration to the OECD's recommendations and findings. This task force, which has met twice to date, is chaired by the Secretary General to the Government. Its membership includes four external members, namely, Mr. Mark Ryan, country managing director, Accenture, Mr. John Maloney, group managing director, Glanbia PLC, Ms Breege O'Donoghue, director, Penneys Primark and Mr. Paul Haran, Principal, College of Business and Law, UCD, as well as the Secretaries General to the Departments of Finance, Health and Children, the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Education and Science.
The OECD report takes account of the significant and unprecedented levels of extensive consultation held during 2007 and 2008, including the public consultation process. We now need a small team to advance implementation of the OECD's recommendations. The main reason for the establishment of this task force, therefore, is to develop an action plan to guide the implementation of the recommendations set out in the OECD report. Clearly, there are some key stakeholders concerned with the shape of this implementation phase, including in particular the public service trade unions.
The task force will consider how the principle of partnership with public servants and their representatives should be reflected in the course of implementation. I am sure that engagement with other stakeholders will also form part of the implementation strategy.
The terms of reference for the task force are to prepare for consideration by the Government a comprehensive framework for renewal of the public service which takes into account the analysis and conclusions of the OECD report, as well as the lessons to be drawn from the strategic management initiative, the organisational review programme and the efficiency review process, and to recommend, in particular, how best to secure an overarching policy for an integrated public service that enables increased flexibility, mobility and staff development and supports the competencies and practices necessary for new networked ways of working within and across the broader public service and the basis for determining the contribution which a senior public service could make to an integrated and cohesive public service.
The task force is also being asked to outline a set of criteria to inform the way in which the business of Government is structured and organised with a strategy to enable necessary changes to be planned and implemented successfully, the benefits of greater use of shared services across all sectors of the public service and an appropriate framework for the establishment and operation and governance of State agencies.
It is also being asked to develop a strategy by which e-Government delivers coherent and citizen-focused services and more closely supports greater efficiency in administrative processes and an implementation plan specifying the tasks and responsibilities necessary for the successful implementation of the renewal agenda, including the ways in which the principle of partnership with public servants and their representatives will be applied.
It is not anticipated that there will be any significant costs associated with the task force. External members of the task force are participating on a pro bono basis. The secretariat to the task force will be provided by the public service modernisation division in my Department. It will complete its work by the end of the summer and I look forward to the report.
The Taoiseach said he has established a task force to advance the recommendations. I understand that this task force is due to report by the end of the summer. Can the Taoiseach confirm if that is still the target date for the task force to report? Can he give some indications as to when we will have a report from the task force?
He mentioned that there would be a process of consultation with the public service trade unions as one of the stakeholders in this, and this is quite proper and appropriate. Can he tell us by what means the other stakeholders in respect of public service reform and the delivery of public services, particularly the wider public which consumes public services, is to be consulted? By what means are their opinions to be taken into account in advancing this area?
In respect of some of the areas commented on in the OECD report, the report identifies that decentralisation will result in a 90% turnover of staff in some areas which are to be decentralised. How on earth are public services to be efficiently delivered if there is a 90% turnover of staff in some areas which are to be decentralised? Does it make sense, particularly in the new economic circumstances in which we find ourselves and the new circumstances surrounding the public finances, for the State to spend €900 million decentralising offices all over the country and then spend additional money paying travelling expenses to civil and public servants in the various areas to which they have been decentralised who will meet each other on the road when they travel to and from meetings in Dublin? Arising from the OECD report, will there be a Government review of its plans in respect of decentralisation?
Will the Government accept the report's recommendation in respect of the Freedom of Information Act? The report recommended that the charges for making applications under the Act be abolished to give the public added access to information. What is the position regarding State agencies? I understand that on the day this report was launched, the then Taoiseach said something to the effect that we had double the number of State agencies we needed. The current Taoiseach gave strong indications that he planned to reduce the number of State agencies and rationalise the situation. What is the current state of thinking in that regard?
The OECD report does not criticise decentralisation policy or say it was a bad idea. Deputy Gilmore continually characterises decentralisation as a bad idea, despite the fact that the many people I meet who have decentralised to various parts of the country are very happy with their move. The decentralisation implementation group has always been aware of the business issues surrounding the relocation programme. With that in mind, each organisation participating in the programme is asked to prepare detailed implementation plans, including risk mitigation plans. I do not agree with the Deputy that decentralisation is not a good thing, nor do many of his backbenchers.
On the matter of agencies and their governance, there are recommendations in the report on how to proceed in that regard, namely, along the principles of partnership. This is something on which we must work. The stakeholders, as part of the implementation process, will be consulted in due course. What we are talking about now is putting a shape on how we proceed with the implementation of the various recommendations set out in the report.
The task force has met on only two occasions so far and, therefore, it cannot indicate, except in general terms, when it expects to finalise its report. It says it will be the end of the summer and there is no reason to change that timeframe. It is undertaking important work and I look forward to its report, which should provide us with the means by which we can proceed with implementation, which is the next priority now that this report has been received.
I never said decentralisation was a bad idea. Decentralisation cannot be judged solely on whether there are staff who are willing to decentralise to certain offices and whether they are happy when they do so. I have no doubt they are. No doubt, there are staff who want to relocate to other locations and there are staff who are very happy when they do so. That is not the issue. The issue here is whether in the new climate in which we find ourselves the Government's decentralisation plan, which as I understand it has not been changed from a policy point of view since it was announced by the then Minister, Mr. McCreevy, represents value for money for the public, which is paying for it. The projected cost of the entire decentralisation plan is approximately €900 million. I suggest that in the new circumstances in which we find ourselves, where, as we were told today, there has been a turnaround of approximately €10 billion in Government finances, it is not a good idea to proceed with spending €900 million in relocating civil and public servants all over the country, particularly in circumstances where there will be a continuing cost to the public purse for civil servants travelling this way to one meeting and that way to another and meeting each other half way along the road.
The OECD may not have criticised the decentralisation proposal, but it is interesting that it was not asked to comment on it. However, it volunteered a comment, one which is not complimentary about the plans being put through. It says that in some areas of the public service that are to be decentralised, in order for the decentralisation to be effective it will be necessary to have a 90% change in the staff. By implication, it suggests that will be bad for delivery of the service. Everybody knows, particularly with regard to specialised areas in State agencies or the Civil Service, that if it is necessary to have a 90% turnover in people dealing with a particular service, there will be, at the very least, a disruption in the quality of service being delivered to the public, on top of the cost incurred in trying to achieve decentralisation. The Taoiseach has received the OECD report that comments on decentralisation plans. The Taoiseach may not agree with my take on decentralisation. Is the Government conducting a review of the decentralisation plan or is this the same plan as that announced originally by the former Minister, Charlie McCreevy?
I do not agree with Deputy Gilmore's characterisation of the decentralisation plan. He continues to denigrate it by suggesting that it is all about people meeting half way in cars on their way to meetings.
That is happening.
The factual position is that the decentralisation programme has been an unmitigated success for those who have decentralised in terms of quality of life, work environment and a range of issues, including the efficiency with which they deliver services. If Deputy Gilmore can identify any decentralised office in which there has been a reduction in the provision of service to the public as a result of decentralisation, I would like to hear about it. In fact, the contrary is the case because we are providing these services in a more localised environment, services which were less accessible to people in the regions than is now the case. The Deputy does not have the evidence to back up the idea that people will proceed with the decentralisation programme unwittingly, or in the absence of proper business efficacy and organisation, because all the decentralised offices that have been completed are successful.
The programme is voluntary for State agencies. Considerable industrial relations issues arose and a specific case was taken with regard to FÁS. When Deputy Gilmore raised this issue before I asked everyone to sit down, work out and scope the issues, to see what can and cannot be done. Until that scoping is done and interaction takes place, we are being unfair on the 1,000 people from State agencies whose applications are in the central applications facility and who have indicated a willingness to relocate. We must consider the future of the organisation, those who do not wish to relocate and cannot and will not be forced to relocate, and those who wish to relocate. The problem is that we are getting no engagement. Some 20% of the total programme relates to State agencies. We have seen many examples of success in respect of decentralisation of various aspects of Departments. There is no gainsaying in continuing to denigrate the programme as Deputy Gilmore and others do because the evidence does not stack up.
We will continue to seek to implement the programme in a prudent and proper way, working in partnership with staff organisations and trade unions, as has been the case up to now. We seek to build on the success of decentralisation in the past, not the reputed failure Deputy Gilmore tries to attribute to it.
With respect, the Taoiseach did not answer the question asked by Deputy Gilmore. Deputy Gilmore did not denigrate the decentralisation policy.
He certainly did, with a smart comment.
There was no smart comment.
It was uttered for a cheap headline.
All over the country there is evidence of the value of a well-managed decentralisation programme from Letterkenny, Sligo, Ballina to Tralee and the Taoiseach's area of Tullamore. The Taoiseach sat on the Government benches when then Minister, Charlie McCreevy, read out his Budget Statement, which referred to moving 10,000 public servants to 53 locations inside three years. That is a very long time ago. The OECD refers in its report to this being administrative relocation, with no power being transferred, merely the movement of public servants and offices to different locations. The OECD offered the critique that continuing in this way will fragment the quality of the public service being provided. The report points this out specifically and makes the point that the internal documents of the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources show that decentralisation has negatively affected the roll-out of national broadband services, which are so critical to industrial and business development around the country. The unholy mess of the way the decentralisation project is being managed is having a direct impact on this.
What is the current position on the Department of Education and Science's move to Mullingar? Has the land been bought? Has planning permission been sought? When will building start? Many senior civil servants stated they are willing to transfer and relocate in the knowledge they will be retired by the time decentralisation will become a reality. It is now seven years since the statement was made in this House that 10,000 public servants would move to 53 locations within three years.
Is it still Government policy to move State agencies where clearly there is no voluntary willingness to move? Given the nature of the job involved in some cases, it is unsuitable to move people. Does the Government still want to relocate State agencies on the basis of what was stated in the original statement by the then Minister for Finance, Mr. McCreevy? Can we have an up to date report on this? The former Minister of State, Mr. Parlon, used to be on the radio every day explaining something else which had happened and that there was a little movement here and there.
The concept of decentralisation has always been valued but only where it is well managed and well delivered and where the numbers and categories stack up with regard to voluntary movement. This has turned into a shambles. The cost referred to is €1.27 billion. Given the other problem the Taoiseach faces with a Minister for Finance who seems to be an unwilling workhorse in that Department, what is the story with regard to the timescale for the decentralisation of public offices? Is it still the Government's intention to move State agencies where the staff do not want to move?
It is interesting that six questions were tabled on the OECD report on the reform of the public service and we are discussing one third of a paragraph of a 400 page report. However, I will answer the question if this is as much as people want to discuss.
I will ask another question in a minute.
With regard to decentralisation, the policy remains the same. It is a voluntary programme. The decentralisation implementation group has published at least five reports since the original budget announcement which confirm that because of industrial relations issues and the consultations which much take place, the target of three years was not attainable or possible. We moved from this position long ago. Decentralisation implementation group reports which are at least three years old confirm this and coming forward with this idea at this stage suggests Deputy Kenny is trying to regurgitate something. We have passed this point long ago.
The policy still includes State agencies. Deputy Kenny mentioned "voluntary willingness". I am not aware of a concept of "involuntary willingness". They will move according to the principles set out in the programme as has always been the case. As I mentioned to Deputy Gilmore, and in replies to previous questions on this matter, industrial relations issues require us to engage. I met with various trade union leaders on this matter to confirm to them we want to move forward by engaging. In fairness to those who wish to move as well as those who indicated they do not wish to move, we must have engagement. We have passed the point where an issue had to be resolved within the industrial relations process. It has been clarified and the Government accepts it. This is the position with regard to this aspect of the programme.
As Deputy Kenny stated, the programme cannot move ahead without the willingness and co-operation of everybody. It is far better to scope the issue and deal with all of these outstanding questions to establish as to what extent the programme can be implemented taking into account business efficacy and everything else on the basis of engagement rather than non-engagement. This is my simple point. No one will be forced to go anywhere. Surely, everyone in the House will agree that engagement should take place to establish how to proceed. In fairness to those who wish to move, this remains our position. I have answered the other parts of the question.
An announcement was made in the Chamber, one of the few which was, to move 10,000 public servants to 53 locations in three years. It was done without any consultation. It is a bit Irish if the Taoiseach is coming into the House six or seven years later saying the Government cannot move anybody because it wants to consult people. The Government did not consult anybody in the first place.
We are moving people.
The former Minister for Finance, Mr. McCreevy, announced in the House 10,000 staff would move to 53 locations.
It was a voluntary programme from day one.
The only person who happened to know this was happening was the former Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Mr. Parlon, who had signs up in Laois-Offaly the evening before the announcement.
The Taoiseach is now saying nobody will move unless he or she is willing to do so. I do not have any evidence of reality here or of people in State agencies who are settled in Dublin, for instance, with their families, school connections and so on wanting to move voluntarily to locations mentioned in the programme. The Taoiseach referred to involuntary willingness but this is many years after the announcement and it is a bit Irish to say the Government wants everybody to understand it is negotiating fully with them.
A question, please.
The Taoiseach said this referred to a half paragraph in the OECD report. Members are perfectly entitled to raise these issues in the House because they are of considerable importance to the livelihoods, careers and the basis on which people join the public service in the first place.
I refer to quangos. The Government is aware of the proliferation of quangos it set up — 200 in ten years. The OECD referred to the proliferation of agencies in Ireland and, specifically, to their tremendous freedom in setting policy objectives, which has led to mission creep, unsustainable in the long run, and large scale duplication of roles. Deputy Varadkar set out a detailed document some months ago on the basis of reduction of costs, creation of efficiency and a reduction in quangos. The Government has quangos for everything. It has quangos to quangos, all set up under the Taoiseach as Minister for Finance and with the full approval of Government. No responsibility is vested in the House anymore. Ministers will hive off responsibility for every issue to somebody else. Has the Government examined this? What are the requirements necessary to set up a new quango? In other words, in what circumstances will they be set up? What is the programme for the reduction in the number of existing quangos, be they in local authorities or subsections of agencies of Departments and so on?
The OECD referred to waste management, for which there is clearly no palpable sense of a plan. There is no regional cohesion regarding landfills and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has proposed to burn all around him to deal with landfill sites, except in his own constituency, where he has a problem. What is the Government plan in respect of waste management, which is criticised by the OECD? The Government has allowed for the curtailment of private sector services which were supported by tens of thousands of people and the provision of what they consider to be an inferior public service. There seems to be a lack of co-ordination in this area, which is costing the taxpayer money. In respect of the criticism by the OECD of waste management, what is the Government's plan and programme? Why is there no cohesion between regional authorities in respect of landfill sites? Where stands the Government's incineration programme?
The OECD report examined a number of agencies and made a number of recommendations regarding governance and improving the performance of agencies. The task force on public service will examine all issues set out in the report and specific actions to address these recommendations will be set out in its comprehensive response. It is, however, simplistic to say that reducing the number of agencies improves services. If the OECD recommendations are carefully read, it instead is indicating that a properly established, well governed agency can be effective and can lead to improvements in service delivery. The next phase of public service reform will need to examine further how existing agencies are governed, the dialogue and accountability arrangements in place between parent Departments and their agencies and whether there is scope for agencies to merge with other agencies or whether there is an ongoing need for the service they provide.
With regard to the establishment of new agencies, all proposals to Government will have to be carefully examined and critically assessed to see whether the task can be done by an existing agency instead. Where there is a need to create an agency, we will ensure that appropriate governance and reporting mechanisms are put in place and focused on delivering services to maximise benefits to citizens and provide effective value for money.
The real issue in respect of agencies is guaranteeing better outcomes for the public. The newly appointed task force will examine this issue and how best to implement the OECD's recommendations so as to do this in the proper way. The report also indicates that progressing the public service reform and modernisation agenda lies not solely in changing the institutional architecture or the allocation of responsibilities between Departments, offices, agencies and levels of Government, but in getting the different parts of the system working differently with a greater focus on collaboration, achieving wider societal goals and ensuring that the reforms introduced are appropriately sequenced. The OECD cautions against trying to reorganise functions across levels of Government in favour of trying to have organisations and individuals behave differently and in collaborative ways.
It is a question of how to get existing organisations to work better beyond their remits and how they interact. That is the purpose of the reform. In terms of shared services, the question is how to reduce costs. There have been some good examples in the public service in that area, specifically as regards waste management. Generally speaking, there has been an impressive improvement in the reduction of waste to landfill as a proportion of total waste produced. Recycling and other initiatives have been working very well in recent years. The remediation of landfills that do not meet the required EU standards is a major cost input with which we must deal, a legacy of our past.
The report relates to the task force sequencing the way in which reform should take place, determining how to work and interact with other stakeholders, such as trade union representatives, in getting across the message of how the new culture they are trying to establish will avoid fragmentation and set in place an integrated senior public service across Departments and agencies so that we can better provide services for the public.
I have a question.
I must allow Deputy Ó Caoláin to speak, but I will come back to Deputy Kenny.
I want to address the composition of the task force. Will the Taoiseach confirm that one of the aims and objectives of the new task force in preparing an action plan is to see an improvement in the delivery of services through the public service? If that is the case — other questioners have raised the issue of engagement with other sectors — does the Taoiseach not agree that the restrictive composition of the task force — the Secretary General to the Government, Secretaries General of a number of Departments and a number of representatives of private sector interests — means it lacks something that would undoubtedly help the work and focus of the task force, namely, direct access to those who represent the consumer, the ordinary citizen, representatives of the trade union sector and non-governmental organisations?
Will the Taoiseach consider expanding the number of people who will be directly involved in the work of the task force? I do not mean that tongue-in-cheek, but there was mention here previously of consumer groups and their representatives. Does the Taoiseach see a role for such a representative in this matter? In this Deputy's opinion, they would have a contribution to make. By being confined particularly to the Secretaries General named and representatives of the private sector, the task force will not do its job as thoroughly as it might. I hope and expect it has a much wider brief. Will the Taoiseach rectify this?
At a time of ever-straitening economic circumstances and cutbacks, will the Taoiseach assuage fears that the task force might be used as a vehicle, particularly with its current membership, towards seeking contraction in the public service in the period ahead? Can the Taoiseach assuage any fear that prevails in the House and externally that the task force might be so misemployed in the course of its work over the short period that it has been tasked to address these issues?
An extensive consultation process has been undertaken by those who authored the report over a 17 to 18 month period. We do not now need another report on a report on which there was already consultation. Having had the recommendations comprehensively set out and having had all that consultation with various stakeholders in the preparation of the report, the job now is to sequence an implementation agenda as to how we implement and make the vision set out in the report happen. The vision is quite radical in the sense that it seeks to move beyond examining the provision of the service in terms of Departments working within their own remit. The whole idea is to try to establish a senior public service cohort of people at senior management level who can ensure the delivery of the service is best guaranteed by a reorganisation that will deliver these services in a way that meets the expectations of our people. That is the purpose of the public sector reform idea. There is a recognition that our public service has considerable strengths, but it also obviously has many challenges. We need to proceed with a reform process along the principles of partnership which have served us well up to now. We have already had various initiatives. This process involves pulling all that together. The issue is not a question of the need for further consultation in that respect.
In regard to those who are employed in the task force, they are people who have been involved in change management issues, namely, senior managers within the public service who are aware and understand the personnel issues involved, who have an intimate acquaintance with how the service is organised, where the responsibilities reside and how services are implemented and have been developed. Therefore, they come with a collective expertise of public sector involvement and private sector experience. They bring that discipline to the table to examine what way we can assist in ensuring that the reform of the public sector is one that provides a better service, better outputs and a more co-ordinated and integrated approach ensuring that we organise the service in such a way as to meet the more challenging economic environment in which we will have to operate in the years ahead, regardless of the phase of the economic cycle in which we are currently. Having regard to our demographics and a range of other issues, the whole premise behind even health sector reform is governed by the demographics, specialisation, the need for reform of how work is organised, work practices, the need to provide greater discretion at the front line and the need to develop community services. A series of ideas must be brought together in a way that enables people to manage the existing service and also to change it for the future to ensure we can have a sustainable level of services provided as efficiently and effectively as possible in, for example, the health sector, although one could examine a range of other challenges in other areas of public policy.
For those reasons, this task force should be allowed to get on with its work. It will report at the end of the summer, probably in the early autumn, and we can debate it in the House and see where we will go from there with it, but at least we will have moved it on to a phase where we can start to see how we would go from A to Z, or even from A to D or A to F in starting this process of public sector reform, which is a complex issue. We have seen sectorally how complex and complicated it is and it is no less complex in terms of the service generally.
I will call Deputy Ó Caoláin and then Deputies Shortall and Kenny. I ask the Deputies to be brief given the limited time allowed for these questions.
I accept that.
Having heard how the Taoiseach responded, I am still not convinced the cadre of people who have been appointed have any monopoly on the wisdom of how an action plan could be outworked in terms of the development of a better public service to ensure the delivery of services to the ordinary citizen which should be its central objective. I ask again whether the Taoiseach will give consideration to the expansion of its numbers to include the elements I have suggested, including citizens, trade unions and non-governmental organisations.
Will the task force consider international experiences and examples of best practice? For instance, will consideration be given to what are accepted as exemplary public services? I am sure all such have their warts and all, but there is an acknowledgement that the Nordic experience in terms of the delivery of public services is among the most superior and has certainly helped to crystallise a fairer society. Will there be an examination of so-called best practice or better practice in other jurisdictions in order to inform the work of the task force in the period ahead?
The Taoiseach speaks about reform in the public service as if it were merely a matter of improving management. Does he not accept there is a need for a clear shift towards a strong consumer focus? In that context, it makes sense that consumers should be represented on the task force. It should not represent an insiders' view of what the public service is about.
In regard to the calibre of people in the Civil Service, there have been dramatic changes in the last 20 years. Most young people now go on to third level education and most people in the jobs market who are applying for administrative posts have degrees. Why have we not moved towards the situation which exists in the United Kingdom, for example, where public service management visits universities in an effort to recruit the best and brightest? Why are there not greater opportunities for graduates to join the public service? Surely we should be trying to attract the best people.
In regard to promotions at senior level, why are we not meeting the targets set in terms of opening promotional posts to people from outside the public service? What does the Taoiseach intend to do about this?
Going back to what I said about decentralisation in respect of the broadband scheme, the information obtained from the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources under the freedom of information provisions shows the cost has increased because the Department had to hire consultants to implement the programmes because public servants were unwilling to decentralise. That is the point I was making.
The OECD is critical of the operation of quangos, particularly in regard to local authorities. We have a situation where, in many cases, the local authority is both regulator and service provider. This causes a clear conflict of interest, is inefficient and does not provide taxpayers with the service they expect for the taxes they pay. This is a central element of the issue and the task force should examine it and make recommendations to sort it out. However, we appear to be in a position where we have action plans, reports and task forces but the situation is drifting on and getting worse by the month.
A consultative panel was appointed which was representative of a range of interested parties, including trade union representatives and those working in consumer advocacy agencies. The task force did not work in a vacuum but in consultation with this consultative panel, which had a range of expertise available to it.
Should those individuals not be represented on the task force?
It is always a matter of judgment who is included on such bodies. I do not suggest that the task force has a monopoly of wisdom. Many of its members work in the front line of social partnership, while others have been involved in major change management within companies, do so regularly as part of their job or have an expertise in this area. The objective is to set out an implementation plan similar to that which followed from the Culleton report on industrial policy, where a task force was set up under Paddy Moriarty. We took a task oriented approach in that instance which allowed us get on with implementing what people were agreed should happen. Because of the broad and comprehensive nature of the report and how it interacts and suggests change on all fronts, one needs to devise an action plan as to how to go about it. Those who are on the task force are well qualified to do that job. That job is not completed when they bring forward a task force report. One then gets engaged in very detailed discussions and progress with others who are at the front line in the delivery of these services. It is not that it begins and ends by the end of summer. This is a process that will require a very dedicated approach over a period to bring about the changes. Everyone in social partnership is signed up to the 2016 document in which we are prepared to put the citizen at the centre of our concern, to see how we can build services around the citizen in the various life cycle approaches outlined in that report and move away from the traditional service provided model where the provider explains how the service is provided and the citizen has to try to fit into that model. We are saying we are prepared to deconstruct and reconstruct, where necessary, the provision of public services and have different models of public service delivery in an effort to improve how those services are being accessed by citizens and to use e-Government and other technology. There have been some good instances of the use of such technology in the public service. For example, the Revenue Commissioners have given an excellent example of what can be achieved by a good e-Government approach by transforming the relationship for the consumer in the important matter of tax compliance.
It is one of the few.
It may be one of the few but it shows what can happen with the right leadership, the right approach and the right methodology. It can be done. While it may not be uniform across the service it is more prevalent in the service than it is given credit for. By the same token, it is not uniform and is not to the same standard and imagination as the good examples one can provide. That is the benchmark by which every other public service agency, organisation and Department needs to raise their game because that is the way in which we confirm our commitment to public service. That is the way in which we persuade people that the public service delivery mechanism is the best one available. In the absence of being able to meet the expectations of consumers in that respect, people demand other means of providing the service if they are not getting it. The reality has to meet the rhetoric and all of us have to work for that.
Social partnership can raise itself to this challenge on the basis we are all committed to getting the same outcome. It is just a question of applying ourselves to it and setting out a means by which we can do it, based on the very good experience we have had thus far as to how social partnership has been the means by which we have solved many problems, which in the past were regarded as insoluble because people were taking up positions which might be fine in terms on one sectional interest but which did not solve the problem. That is what is at the heart of this process and will determine its success or failure. I do not suggest it is simply a question of the calibre of the management strata of the service that dictate the outcome. Far from it, but without it taking its responsibility to lead, bring people into the process and work with them co-operatively and get the necessary changes to bring benefits to everybody, including those who deliver the services — some in crisis management areas — it is not possible to improve the work environment for those who provide the service in the same way as it is not possible to improve the service for the citizen. These are the challenges. This task force is well equipped to provide a pathway for progress in these areas and get into the business of moving from recommendations to changes on the ground and changes in work organisation and work practice which will be to the benefit of those who work in the public service and provide a renewed sense of direction in regard to where public services are going.