Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 29 April 2008
1 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the findings of the Comptroller and Auditor General special report No. 58 on e-Government in so far as it relates to areas for which his Department has responsibility. [1138/08]
View answer2 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the amount expended by his Department in regard to the e-Government project; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1139/08]
View answer3 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the new or improved services that were provided for members of the public by his Department under the e-Government project; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1140/08]
View answer4 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the reason the Information Society Commission was not reappointed or replaced when its term ended in May 2005; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1141/08]
View answer5 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach when the new information society action plan will be published; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1142/08]
View answer6 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the role his Department played in the development of the reach and broker system, arising from the Government’s e-Government plan; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1143/08]
View answer7 Deputy Liz McManus asked the Taoiseach his views on the recently published report from the Comptroller and Auditor General which found serious issues with e-Government projects; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10588/08]
View answer8 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if a value for money audit has been carried out in his Department on the e-Government project; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15232/08]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 8, inclusive, together.
The special report on e-Government, prepared by the Comptroller and Auditor General, focused on a number of specific areas including strategies, costs and projects. The report acknowledges that there have been many successful projects which, when compared with other countries, points to Ireland being exceptional in the high level of success that has been achieved.
It is important to understand that the development of the information society both here and abroad is a story of evolution that started with a strong focus on the supply of technology and the development of on-line facilities for information dissemination and, increasingly, the use of the Internet for conducting transactional business. In short, much of the earlier efforts were concentrated on putting things on-line because of the perceived need to establish a momentum.
More recently, the emphasis has shifted towards ‘outcome' achievement and there is a growing recognition that the decision on whether and when to deploy technologies needs to take account of the capacity of organisations to cope with, and to effectively manage, the changes required in terms of the people, the processes and the organisational cultures involved.
It is no longer a simple issue of just procuring the technology. It is fundamentally an issue of setting out to achieve a goal of improved performance in an integrated approach that takes account of the context outlined above, both within government and in all other sectors of society where managers and leaders pursue the goal of better outcomes.
One aspect of this is that the power of technology is opening up possibilities for new services, new structures that reflect different types of relationships, and a shift in service cultures being brought about by the social innovations emerging from the huge increase in Internet-based social networking.
In terms of the use of technology in Government, it can both catalyse and support change and modernisation being undertaken to improve the performance on the public service in the many activities that this involves. For instance, the goals and targets set out in the current programme for Government, in the social partnership agreement, Towards 2016, in the national action plan on social inclusion and in the national development plan mean that the organisations involved in implementing the relevant schemes and programmes will deploy resources and implement organisational transformations around these new purposes.
The information society policy unit at my Department has been responsible for co-ordinating the development of information society policy in Ireland. However, under the Public Service Management Act 1997 individual Departments are responsible for the delivery of services related to their own remits. The Department of Finance, which is responsible for policy on the deployment of information and communications technologies in Government Departments has, by circular 16/97, given individual Departments and offices responsibility for e-Government projects under normal delegated sanction for ICT related expenditure. Accordingly, questions related to specific e-Government projects should be addressed to the relevant Departments.
The Department of the Taoiseach does not have responsibility for the delivery of many "public facing" services, with the exception of our websites which have been expanded and enhanced in recent years. Therefore, the question of my Department delivering "new or improved services" for members of the public does not arise in practice.
The information society policy unit at my Department was established in 1999 following the publication of the first action plan for the development of an information society in Ireland. One of the strands of that plan was around the development of on-line service delivery mechanisms and the unit worked in conjunction with other Departments in promoting that goal. It is important to bear in mind that the main focus was on getting services on-line as an outcome in itself, on the basis that by doing so the quality of the service experience would be improved in terms of speed and convenience. As the Comptroller and Auditor General's special report points out, there was considerable success in that drive and we now have several hundred services on-line to individuals and businesses.
To boost the momentum, the information society fund was used to support e-Government projects until the end of 2005. At that stage, it was felt that Departments and agencies should have mainstreamed the use of modern technologies where compatible with their business objectives and it was no longer necessary to have a special fund because by treating e-Government as something different, it was felt that it was in danger of being considered a luxury rather than a necessity for organisations to improve their performance in their particular field of activity. As I indicated, however, questions related to specific e-Government projects should be addressed to the relevant Departments.
In the case of the Department of the Taoiseach, it has had significant success in the use of ICT to improve the internal services it provides, including e-Cabinet. The e-Cabinet system, which is in operation across Departments, was implemented on a phased basis between 2004 and 2007. In 2005, the Department's internal audit unit completed an audit on the e-Cabinet project, which was funded under the Government's information society fund. The purpose of the audit was to provide assurance to the Department's Accounting Officer on the integrity of the financial records and procedures. The subsequent report by the internal audit unit concluded that the correct procedures and financial records had been maintained. It also noted that significant savings had been made on the delivery costs of the project. The total cost of the e-Cabinet project was slightly more than €5 million, well below the initial estimated cost of €6.45 million, at 2001 prices, even though the system has many additional features beyond those referred to in the 2001 PWC feasibility study.
The Department of the Taoiseach, in the context of its steering role in public service modernisation, encourages all Departments to aim for the highest standards of service delivery, including the innovative and targeted use of ICT. The principal proposals prepared by Departments and offices were collated by my Department and published in the first information society action plan and its successor, New Connections.
The Information Society Commission played an important role, as an independent advisory body, in increasing awareness and understanding of the potential contribution that can be made by ICT. It also provided advice to the Government and played a key role in shaping the evolving public policy framework for the development of the information society in Ireland.
The second commission's term ended in December 2004 and its final report, Learning to Innovate, was published in January 2005. By the time the commission published its final report, it had produced 14 valuable reports on a wide range of information society related issues which were taken into account in formulating policy. By the time the commission's term ended, awareness of information technology was high and the key issues identified for action were inclusion and the incorporation of the exploitation of technology within mainstream management across the sectors.
The commission endorsed the move from the concept of an information society to one of a knowledge society, with a consequent shift in emphasis to building knowledge assets that are more mobile and potent in our globalised world. This, in turn, highlights the need to create and maintain an environment that is conducive to creativity — one which values those who will create and work with such knowledge assets. It also underlines the need to ensure as many people as possible get access to the facilities and services ICT and the Internet can provide.
The report of the Comptroller and Auditor General acknowledges that many e-Government projects — the majority of the projects it reviewed — have been successful. These include the Revenue on-line service, ROS, motor tax on-line, citizens' information and agricultural services. The previously mentioned e-Cabinet project delivered by the Department of the Taoiseach is another example of how technologies can be used to deliver internal efficiencies and this project, spearheaded by my Department, has attracted international interest.
There are also examples of e-Government projects that have resulted in substantial financial savings, such as the Government virtual private network, GVPN, which reduced the voice and data telecommunications costs of public bodies by between 20% and 50%.
On a point of order, we have listened to an answer for more than ten minutes. Will we have an opportunity to ask some supplementary questions?
Yes.
There will be an opportunity. I have eight questions to answer and I am doing my best.
By the look of the length of the Minister's script——
Deputy Coveney need not worry.
Deputy Coveney should let the Minister continue. There are questions that must be answered. Will the Minister please continue?
I am looking forward to it.
It sounds like a filibuster.
I am just asking the question because——
Let the Minister keep going.
The Minister must be allowed to complete his answer to the questions.
The Minister should be the Taoiseach elect.
Discounted rates achieved through the GVPN contract ensured the public service received maximum value for money and substantial savings in the order of €25 million per annum in its voice and data telecommunications expenditure. Savings such as the €18.41 million saved by Revenue in 2007 represent an ongoing annual value dividend from that investment in e-Government.
Research by my Department indicates that it has already been possible to identify estimated savings in the region of €86 million per annum arising from our investment in e-Government projects. These savings result, for example, from staff savings, reduced administrative overheads, reduced third party costs and reduced need for advertising. This represents the annual value of savings to the State and, in some cases, for citizens or customers of the State. It is a figure that will grow as more people avail of on-line services, as new on-line services are made available and as other benefits are identified and measured. This is further strong evidence of the success of the Government's action plan.
The report notes that some projects did not proceed. Decisions not to proceed were taken following detailed analysis of significant relevant factors. In those circumstances, a decision not to proceed represented prudent management.
The Government decision to establish the public services broker, PSB, was taken in May 2000. The broker was conceived as the shared mechanism for facilitating the delivery of on-line services to citizens on an integrated basis. The Government decided at that time that the REACH agency should be mandated to progress and build the broker. The Department of the Taoiseach was involved in an advisory capacity on the REACH board. Responsibility for REACH now lies with the Department of Finance. Specific questions related to the agency or broker should be addressed to that Department.
As the Comptroller and Auditor General's report acknowledges, elements of the e-Government strategy were innovative and ambitious and this posed special challenges. For instance, early implementation of the public services broker was contingent on successfully putting in place an on-line identity processing system. Some of the countries now regarded as being very advanced in on-line service delivery had the advantage of already having had national identity registers in place since Napoleonic times. The identity validation system being delivered has to rigorously protect personal identities and information.
Subsequent to the period covered by the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, stronger project governance measures have been put in place by the Government, including the requirement for peer review of significant projects. I draw attention to the remarks of the Comptroller and Auditor General at the Committee of Public Accounts session on 6 March where he indicated that his report should not be seen as a criticism, but one which recognised the considerable successes that have been achieved.
A new knowledge society action plan is nearing completion. It will take account of relevant international developments, such as the EU's i2010 framework, as well as the review of the Irish public service by the OECD which has just been published and, indeed, the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Contrary to some reports, e-Government in this country has been a considerable success story.
The e-Cabinet system is an important example of the innovative utilisation of technology to improve public service efficiency. It is an award-winning project and is the first of its kind worldwide. It has helped to eliminate the manual distribution of papers and has streamlined processes across all Departments regarding the submission of papers to the Cabinet. Delivered under budget, it represents excellent value for money. Besides staff savings and reduction of paper usage in serving Government, it facilitates significant time savings for Ministers and senior officials. This is a real value, although difficult to quantify in financial terms.
The Government virtual private network was designed to provide all Departments and agencies with a high availability, secure and cost effective mobile and fixed line voice and data telecommunications solution through a draw-down contract. The centrally negotiated contract was to provide for continued monitoring of the market and price negotiation with the preferred carriers to ensure value for money through robust contract management arrangements and annual reviews. The GVPN contract ensured that the public service received maximum value for money and substantial savings — in the order of €25 million per annum — in its voice and data telecommunications expenditure. These discounted rates also resulted in a reduction in prices by most other major telecommunications providers for public service bodies.
The on-line motor tax, OMT, project has been extremely successful. Some 41% of eligible vehicle owners nationally are taxing their vehicles on-line and 84% of vehicles, including private cars, agricultural tractors and excavators, motorcycles and motor caravans, can have their motor tax renewed on-line. There have been significant savings in transaction time. It is estimated that at least 125,000 hours are saved annually through use of the OMT service rather than traditional attendance and queueing at local tax offices, not to mention the easing of other difficulties associated with traffic congestion and parking problems in the areas surrounding these offices. The average transaction time, including queuing, has been cut by 28 minutes by OMT. Theoretically, citizens in Dublin could have saved 61,000 hours in 2005 by using this service.
The revenue on-line service provides electronic filing, payment and account look-up facilities for 22 taxes and duties for its customers and their agents or intermediaries. Since 2004, increasing usage of ROS has delivered estimated savings of €49 million to the Revenue Commissioners in the areas of postage, printing and processing.
The Public Appointments Service has successfully introduced the website www.publicjobs.ie, which has reduced the lead time for large volume recruitment by approximately 50%. While the need to advertise all public service jobs widely and on a continuous basis remains, the emergence of www.publicjobs.ie has meant that offices and agencies can utilise the website as a major advertising vehicle at no charge. Annual staff savings to the PAS are estimated at €700,000, while staff savings to the wider public service are estimated at €250,000. Other savings include administrative overheads valued at €620,000. This equates to a total saving of €1,570,000 for the public service. It is estimated that there are additional savings of €170,000 for the user. The total estimated saving is €1,740,000.
The Property Registration Authority of Ireland, PRAI, provides on-line access to folios and maps, which is another clear example of the success of e-Government. This success is evident from the major increases in the number of legal transactions completed since 2000, 107%, and the number of dealings completed by staff members, 75%. The success of e-Government projects may be judged based on take-up — more than 3 million searches and inspections were carried out on-line by customers of the PRAI in 2007.
A total of 205 direct staff savings were identified as being due to the introduction of the animal health computer system by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Of these staff, 115 were made available for redeployment to other Departments and 90 were redeployed internally. The redeployment of 115 staff represents an annual saving of €7.3 million on salary, pension and accommodation costs and €100,000 on other administrative costs. Including those redeployed internally, this represents an ongoing annual saving of more than €13 million. While some portion of this saving was attributable to a reduction in disease levels, it is largely attributable directly to the animal health computer system.
I know this is a long answer, but it is in reply to a number of questions. By pointing out these successes I do not wish to imply that we cannot do better. In that context it is appropriate that we and all Departments, bearing in mind that each has a responsibility for the development of e-Government services relating to its remit, have regard to the recommendations of the OECD report and consider the impact of these recommendations on our progress. The new Government action plan can then be tailored accordingly in setting out the blueprint for even greater successes. A new knowledge society action plan to replace New Connections, which remains the current action plan until a successor plan is approved by Government, will also reflect the relevant conclusions and recommendations of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
I thank the Minister for his lengthy reply, which I can only describe as a fig leaf to cover his embarrassment. Surely the Minister accepts that the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General shows a shambolic record on e-Government. In the Comptroller and Auditor General's report there are repeated criticisms of the failure of two action plans launched by the Government. I can remember the rhetoric, fanfare and commitments to strategic management and moving into the 21st century. All kinds of clichés are used when these plans were being launched by the Taoiseach and his Department but at the end of the day surely the Minister of State will accept the hard facts show a very different picture.
It is almost a scatter-brained approach that has been exposed in this report on e-Government. Clearly, what we have are projects that were delayed, that overran or that never happened. Of the total number, one in three projects was only partly implemented within the period and one in six was abandoned altogether. Is that a matter of concern to the Minister of State? The general approach adopted clearly shows there is poor planning, unrealistic expectation, interdepartmental friction and weak central oversight.
Since the Minister of State seems to be perpetuating the difficulty in getting this sorted out when he states that one should refer to each Department for particular projects, the first question I want him to answer is who is in charge and who will provide the central oversight clearly lacking in this endeavour? Is the Minister of State concerned — as far as I recall he did not mention this in his reply — that progress is slowing rather than speeding up, to which the Comptroller and Auditor General referred and which is a matter of great concern?
I quote particulars to which the Comptroller and Auditor General referred because we need to get a response from the Minister of State. In his report, the Comptroller and Auditor General stated:
All projects should have clear, measurable business objectives, and time and cost targets. A much stronger project cost and performance measurement and reporting system is required, integrated with departmental and agency reporting systems.
Over €420 million was spent over the number of years scrutinised in the report, 20% above budget. On average, the projects were 25% delayed in terms of time lines. Surely, that must alert us to great concerns about poor management.
Neither did the Minister of State state his response to the following request by the Comptroller and Auditor General:
Measurable targets should be set for each of the strategic goals of e-Government, and responsibility for the achievement of the goals should be formally assigned. Annuale-Government progress reports should be published, focusing on the achievement both of strategic goals and of planned project impacts. The effectiveness of the e-Government strategy should be formally and independently evaluated from time to time.
Will the Minister of State do that? These are basic, good management practices with which clearly this Government does not seem to be familiar but now that we have an independent report on which to work, and which is extremely helpful in terms of trying to put the mess right, I wonder whether the Government is listening.
As the Minister of State was clear on the question on the Information Society Commission that he felt this was an important commission which provided much valuable information and direction in terms of policy, why has it not been replaced? It has disappeared since 2005. Why is the Minister of State not replacing it? No doubt he needs help. A commission was in place and was able to give expert advice, and yet this too was jettisoned along with many other projects within the e-Government strategy that never saw the light of day.
Perhaps the Minister of State would be more specific on the information society plan. He did not specify in his reply when exactly that will be published.
I have two other questions, one of which relates to the REACH programme and the public service broker. I do not want the Minister of State to give me the same answer as the Minister for Finance when I asked him this question. A decision came from nowhere about a project that was central to the e-Government strategy, for which someone in the Department of the Taoiseach has overall responsibility. This particular service was to assist the public and was to cost €14 million. It ended up costing €37 million and it costs €15 million per annum to run. On 1 April — an appropriate day — it was announced that the service would be transferred from the Department of Social and Family Affairs to the Department of Finance, presumably to be buried.
Can the Minister of State please clarify exactly what is going on? How many people are involved in developing this particular project? What has happened to the private consultants who are contracted to deal with this project that was supposed to help the public? I would be grateful if he did not refer me to the individual Department. When Government policy on a project is switched or nosedives, the very least the Minister of State can do is to tell the public what is going on. As he pointed out, this is providing better services for the public, but the public is paying a very heavy price due to Government incompetence and rising costs. The REACH programme of the public service broker is a very fine example of how costs have got out of control. We are not getting any answers when we try to raise these issues.
Will the Minister of State please accept that there is disenchantment out there? The public wants on-line services, but we have been lumbered with useless e-voting machines and there was a gargantuan loss of money in the health services following the PPARS fiasco. Now the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General clearly states there are problems in the e-Government strategy that are extremely serious and need to be addressed. Comprehensive and all as it is, does the Minister of State accept that his answer will not deal with the issues?
There are many questions to be answered, but I thank the Deputy for acknowledging some of the work that has been done. The Comptroller and Auditor General stated at the Committee on Public Accounts that his report should not be seen as a criticism, but one which recognises the considerable success that has been achieved. Having said that, I accept that there is much work to be done.
The Deputy's first question was about the linkages between Departments. My own Department is involved in policy co-ordination and we also have a strong role on e-inclusion, which means involving as many people as possible in the information society. We have an e-strategy group of Secretaries General, which provides for a good governance structure. The Information Society Commission was there as——
Who actually is in charge?
Each Department and each Minister——
Who is at the centre of it?
The Taoiseach's Department is in charge of policy formation and delivery is the responsibility of each Minister. The linkage——
Does that mean that the Minister of State is in charge?
No. The Minister in each Department is in charge. I mentioned the successes of on-line revenue, motor taxation and savings in agriculture. The Ministers in those different Departments have provided the leadership and with their officials have been coming up with fantastic results. The Department of the Taoiseach is co-ordinating the work and ensuring we get good value for money.
The OECD report is very timely. The target date for the action plan we are producing is July. That action plan must take the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General into account, as well as the OECD report. The reports acknowledged the success stories of on-line delivery. I agree with the OECD's reference to the fact that e-Government needs to be very much a central part of the modernisation of public services. One gets right in there and it becomes part and parcel of it. It is probably the easiest part. The Deputy knows that the Tánaiste, Deputy Brian Cowen, as Minister for Finance and the next Taoiseach, is applying himself to that project. Obviously, all Ministers would be involved in that regard. It is about involving the right people, processes and culture within the public service so e-Government must be part and parcel of the modernisation process. We draw on the successes that we have achieved.
The OECD report and the Comptroller and Auditor General's report acknowledge considerable successes. We have a co-ordinating role but I want to make it very clear, as I mentioned in my reply, that under the ministerial Acts etc., each line Minister has responsibility for the delivery of on-line services. We know the successes that are there.
In respect of the Deputy's other questions, I covered the information society and the new plan.
What about the Information Society Commission?
At that particular time, the commission had a sizeable budget, as the Deputy is aware. It had to use the funding to initiate many of the very good proposals that have now been realised. We have moved on. Technology moves on. There are so many new ways of dealing with issues with modern technology. That was an idea of its time which is, quite frankly, spent. We are now moving to a new action plan which we hope to launch in July and which will certainly take account of all of the advice we have been given.
As I said earlier, a detailed reply is a matter for the Minister for Finance but I will give a brief background to the REACH project. REACH was originally an agency of the Department of Social and Family Affairs. A decision was made to promote the use of the personal public service number, PPSN, and the public services card, PSC. In 2000, it was mandated to build a public service broker, PSB. The PSB consists of a number of components working together — information repositories, registration, transaction management facilities, a payment engine and a data vault. The information repositories were constructed in the form of Oasis, which is now Citizens Information, and was also built by Comhairle, and Basis for business, which was built by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment.
An important point is that much of the work and ideas that went into that are now being operated by line Departments. This goes back to my earlier point. A considerable amount of good work was done that is valuable so it is not a waste in that sense. Certainly, the payment——
It is costing €15 million per year.
The broker has not been abandoned. Some components are well-established and are used by many people. However, there have been concerns about the ongoing running cost of the broker and the Department of Finance is looking at this with a view to making it more cost effective.
It is important for people to recognise that technology is changing at all times in terms of cost and functionality and that the concept of the broker was devised eight years ago, which is 24 Internet years ago. We must face up to the fact that time and the Internet era move on very rapidly. What is happening now is the right thing. The Department of Finance is looking at that aspect.
I know we will discuss benchmarking and where we stand with regard to our EU colleagues during Deputy Coveney's Private Members' motion tonight. We are at the EU average. We should not lose sight of the fact that our score continually improves. We have been leapfrogged by some member states, but it is important to remember that this is to be expected considering the absence of any culture of centralised identity registration. This is a key issue with which we must deal and which is being addressed by the Department of Finance at present.
It is a poor excuse.
I want to see it dealt with in the context of the new action plan. We have been leapfrogged by some member states. We need a centralised identity registration system. It is part and parcel of any work we do. Indeed, Deputy Coveney's motion refers to this point. The Government is very seriously engaged with the issue of a centralised identity registration system which is common throughout many of the new member states.
I do not know if the Ceann Comhairle has seen a copy of the motion but he will note that we are addressing many of the issues raised by the Deputy.
I am sure the Minister of State has set a record here today with his earlier reply.
I know; I need a glass of water.
I will be brief in putting my question. Are specific guidelines and practices in place within the Civil Service for the procurement and commissioning of IT within Departments and State bodies? A succession of less than successful procurements of computer systems has taken place within State bodies and among the major players in the Civil Service. We need only remind ourselves of the e-voting machines which come directly under the ambit of the Cabinet, PPARS in the HSE and even PULSE in terms of the Garda. None of these measured up to the expectation on its introduction, significant problems arose and the address of deficiencies in regard to two of them was costly. The first of those I mentioned has been parked, perhaps indefinitely.
The Minister of State is obviously consulting outside agencies, so-called experts in the field, on the systems required. Has consideration been given to the expertise within the Civil Service because unquestionably tremendous expertise and knowledge has been built up by people in the Civil Service? Has it been explored? What steps have been taken to avoid a recurrence of these disasters where significant sums of public moneys have been clearly wasted with a very poor return? What steps have been taken to bring on board the expertise within the State bodies, Departments and agencies to match the input of outside expertise in determining the best systems to serve the needs of the particular player considering acquiring a new system or a development of an existing system? I commend the input of those within the Civil Service in this regard. Does the Minister of State agree that if that approach was adopted, we might not have seen the many disasters that have already been recorded during the Government parties' terms in office?
Good public servants within Departments have shown leadership on this issue. I made that point at the outset. To expand on some of the examples I gave, huge savings have been made in systems in the Revenue Commissioners, the motor taxation section and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food because of the ingenuity and leadership of people within the system. That must be acknowledged. My Department encourages and advocates a greater performance in those areas.
The modernisation of public service, with which we are determined to proceed, in particular following the comments in the OECD report, will be a key target of Government. A recommendation of the OECD report, with which I agree, is the use of e-Government, as a central part of such modernisation. The revenue on-line service will lead to an estimated annual saving of €18 million due to the work of the staff in introducing that system. The motor tax on-line service will result in a saving of €924,000 and the introduction of the public jobs website will result in savings of €1.7 million. The e-Cabinet project will result in savings of €60,000 to €70,000 and the system in the Patents Office of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment——
There has not been a striking performance in that area.
The introduction of e-forms in the Local Government Computer Services Board will result in savings of €9 million. The system in the civil registration department of the Department of Social and Family Affairs will result in savings of €7.6 million and the jobs Ireland database of FÁS will result in savings of €1.9 million.
I am glad we have made some savings, given €0.5 billion has been spent on the system.
Naturally, the Opposition Members will concentrate on areas that did not work out. If systems are not working out, it is prudent to decide not to proceed with them.
We recognise the successes, but the Minister of State should recognise the failures.
In Government, as in business, one has to take some risks and we should encourage people who are intelligently examining the options. Given that technology is such a changing and moving target, there will be some element of risk but let us commend and acknowledge the good work that has been done. I could go on about the good examples that exist. There are good performers in the public service and the key objectives of Government must be to acknowledge that and to encourage more of it. Deciding on the system of government is the key target and challenge for any Government and we must now move on to the next stage.
A key issue is the question of identity. We can address the issue. Indeed, it has been seriously addressed. We can examine the systems of identity that are in existence, across a range of Departments, including the Departments of Health and Children, Social and Family Affairs and Finance. There are systems in place already. One objective is to use those systems. A number of experts are examining all sorts of options with regard to identity.
We do not have a culture of identity here, for various reasons. We have had debates on this issue in other fora. In central and eastern Europe, identity is a given with regard to their systems of government and societal objectives. That is part and parcel of the way they are. We have some ground to make up in that area but we will make it up.
We are asking for an honest assessment of the performance of two e-Government strategies to date. I am glad we learned something new today, which is that the Government plans to introduce a new strategy in July of this year. However, the current strategy, which Deputy Kitt has said is still current, ended in 2005 and is already out of date.
I ask the Minister of State to at least acknowledge some of the significant failures that have been outlined in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report. We have spent €0.5 billion of taxpayers' money on these projects. A total of 161 projects were due for completion, but only 74 were delivered. Is that acceptable to the Government? Twenty-three projects were abandoned. Is that acceptable to the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, which is the Department with responsibility for co-ordinating the e-Government effort? Some 44 projects have only been partially implemented and 20 have been described as "status unknown". Does that demonstrate leadership on e-Government? The Minister of State quoted the Comptroller and Auditor General a number of times in his reply. However, his report states:
The momentum towards developing e-Government that was evident in the early years of the decade appears to have faded somewhat. This is evident in the absence of a formal e-Government strategy since the beginning of 2006.
Is that good enough for the Minister of State?
The Minister of State argued that we compare favourably with other countries in the European Union and elsewhere but that is not true. We are below the average in terms of performance, and falling. Our graph is stagnant, while the graphs of other countries are improving. The European Commission pointed out last year that Ireland is ranked No.17 out of 27 member states and No.11 out of the original EU 15. The Economist intelligence unit placed us at No. 21 out of 69 countries. We are not performing well. We need a new impetus, energy and leadership from the Government in this area. It is not good enough to say that if Deputies have questions regarding failed projects, they should address them to the relevant Ministers. It is the Taoiseach’s Department that has the information society policy unit at its disposal. It is surely the body that must drive and co-ordinate e-Government and its future direction.
I ask the Minister of State to outline who is putting the new e-Government strategy in place, who is responsible for it and the proposed timescale and cost of the strategy.
I ask the Minister of State to comment on the fact the Comptroller and Auditor General's report found that progress had slowed. Does he accept that if nobody is in charge, it will not be possible to sort out the problems? I urge him to acknowledge that it must be clear that there is leadership from the top and stop blaming the technology. The report does not find fault with the technology but with the fact that strategic management was not in place and must be provided by the Government. With regard to benefits to the citizen, does the Minister of State accept, for example, it was promised that driving licence and passport applications could be dealt with on-line? The report highlights that business has done better out of this than individuals. For example, only a few services are available to the public through the public service broker scheme. The failures must be dealt with in any future plan.
I refer to my earlier question about the lessons that must be learned from this series of disasters, several of which have been enumerated. Are specific guidelines and practices in place to ensure there will be no recurrence of the squander of public moneys that we have addressed this afternoon and on many occasions previously? What are the guidelines and practices required of Departments, State agencies and the various subsections of the public service? Can we have specific responses in this regard in order that we can have some confidence in a new approach being adopted by the Government?
I refer to the comments of Deputies McManus and Coveney. I acknowledged earlier that lessons will be learned from the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, which covered the period up to 2005, and the OECD report. We want to get this right and what the two reports said is very important with regard to the action plan. My Department will produce the new action plan and it is hoped it will be done by July. Consultation has taken place with all the other Departments and it is our responsibility to put the plan together in consultation with them. We will take account of that. I will be happy to forward detailed information regarding the guidelines, as requested by Deputy Ó Caoláin.
