Written Answers Nos. 37-40
38. Deputy Robert Troy asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform his plans for new shared services across the public services; the lessons that have been learned from recent experiences in respect of shared services; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2830/13]
View answerWithin the Reform and Delivery Office, the Shared Services Transformation Unit is leading a number of key projects.
In May of last year, a formal decision was taken by the Government to set up a HR and Pensions Administration Shared Service Centre, called PeoplePoint, in Clonskeagh in Dublin. PeoplePoint will commence HR services at the end of March, 2013. It is estimated that with the establishment of PeoplePoint and post 2014, when all 40 Departments and Offices have transitioned and the shared service is stabilised that the annual cost of HR services for the civil service will be reduced significantly by €12.5m per annum.
- Payroll services administered by the Civil Service have been baselined and a business case to drive greater efficiencies and improved payroll services through Payroll Shared Services is well advanced.
- A project to gather data to baseline current Civil Service Finance Management and Banking activities has commenced.
- The Shared Services Transformation Unit in my Department is working with nominated senior officials to ensure that robust Share Services plans are developed and implemented in the other key sectors of Health, Education, Justice, Defence and Local Government.
Shared Services aims to achieve effective, cost-efficient internal non-core services, that delivers high-quality services and value for money.
Global studies on implementing Shared Services in the public and private sectors highlights that shared services projects are complex especially where there are multiple stakeholders and multiple ICT solutions in place.
The UK National Audit Office Report (2012) blamed poor co-ordination, costly IT systems, weak sanctions and demands for tailored services for the spiralling costs. The report recommended that strong governance, baselining, standardisation of processes, robust service management, benefits realisation tracking, change management and continuous improvement be implemented for all future projects.
In the Civil Service, we are seeking to implement the lessons learned from this report in the following ways:
1. Strong Programme Management and Governance: We are building capability in programme management and project management. A strong governance model is being developed to ensure transparent accountability and to ensure a compliant harmonious service oriented organisation.
2. Baselining: Our Shared Service methodology involves managing each Shared Services programme at a controlled speed. A business case is prepared for each Shared Service project. The financial and non-financial value of all possible options is considered to evaluate value for money to the taxpayer and to monitor the realisation of benefits.
3. Standardisation of processes: Learning from others our risk mitigation for lack of standardisation of processes is to design common standard efficient processes for implementation with minimal customisations. Processes are being designed in collaboration with Customer Departments and Public Service Bodies to ensure that their needs are understood and represented in any future design.
4. Service Management: The approach being taken to Service management includes the documentation of services to be provided by the Shared Services Centre; that there is a clear segregation of duties between the Shared Service Centre and the retained organisation; that all standards and measures of performance are documented within a Service Delivery Guide.
5. Change Management and Continuous Improvement: Shared Services requires the redesign and transformation of the remaining organisation and making staff changes after transactional work transfers to the Shared Services Centre. The change management activities are being led by an organisation design team as an integral part of each Shared Services programme.
Overall, I am satisfied with the progress being made. A robust transformation plan is being implemented for the Civil Service. The government’s reform programme is delivering results. The public service is changing. The introduction of PeoplePoint at the end of March will represent a very significant step in making Shared Services a reality across the public service.
39. Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform in the event of a public body being found not to be covered by the Freedom of Information legislation to be introduced by him later this year, but not included in the list of exclusions, the person who makes this decision, and if the decision can be appealed to the Information Commissioner or the Courts. [3075/13]
View answer56. Deputy Brian Stanley asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform his plans to fulfil the Programme for Government commitment to legislate to restore the Freedom of Information Act to what it was before it was amended by the previous Government, with particular reference to current charges for Freedom of Information requests. [3078/13]
View answer59. Deputy Seán Crowe asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the reason he intends to retain the exemption for records provided to Ministers for the conduct of parliamentary business within his new Freedom of Information legislation. [3077/13]
View answer61. Deputy Brian Stanley asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he will consider giving the Information Commissioner the power to fine and or publicly reprimand public authorities for ignoring Freedom of Information requests. [3079/13]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 39, 56, 59 and 61 together.
In line with the commitments in the Programme for Government, a central objective of our programme of reform for Freedom of Information (FOI) is the extension of the Act to all public bodies.
As set out in the General Scheme of the FOI reform legislation, it is proposed to include a provision in the Bill which would ensure the application of FOI to all public bodies subject to whatever limitations are approved by the Houses of the Oireachtas in the course of the enactment of the legislation.
At present, any refusal by a public body to release a record under the Act, including on the basis that the public body is not subject to FOI is subject to appeal to the Office of the Information Commissioner and ultimately to the Courts. This will be retained in the reform legislation.
As the Deputy will be aware, the Minister detailed the Government’s proposals in the area of the reform and extension of FOI at my recent meeting with the Oireachtas Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform Committee to discuss the General Scheme of the FOI reform legislation the drafting of which is currently underway. Some of the main features of the reform of FOI are: -
- the significant additional restrictions in access to Government records introduced in 2003 are proposed for repeal in full;
- the mandatory ‘blanket’ class exemption for records relating to security, defence, international relations and Northern Ireland is also being removed;
- the scope for certifying the existence of a deliberative process by Secretaries General is also proposed for repeal and the original public interest test applying in such circumstances is being reinstated.
While repealing the exemption relating to the costing of a public body of a proposal by a political party, my proposals maintain the exemption for records provided to Ministers for the conduct of parliamentary business. The retention reflects the Government’s strong view that the potential for the release of all such records, could significantly undermine the direct and explicit constitutional accountability of Ministers to the Oireachtas, secured through ministerial statements in the Houses and to Oireachtas committees and through replies to parliamentary questions.
Despite the very substantial restrictions and limitations to FOI introduced in 2003, the introduction of "up-front" FOI fees for non-personal requests is often presented in public debate as the most significant curtailment to FOI made at that time, notwithstanding that such fees apply to about three in ten of all FOI requests and the practice by those making frequent non-personal FOI requests has often been to make multiple requests within a single application while paying one application fee.
Consequently, in assessing priorities for reform on fee levels overall, I concluded that the introduction of prohibitive fees for internal review and appeal cases to the Information Commissioner (i.e. €75 and €150 respectively) represented the most serious impediment to ensuring the effective operation of the FOI system overall.
The evidence is that the introduction of high fee levels in these areas has acted as a very strong disincentive to applications for both internal reviews and appeals by requesters who are dissatisfied with the decision-making of public bodies.
The consequent diminution in oversight and scrutiny by the Information Commissioner of the implementation of the legislation by public bodies is unlikely to have a positive effect on the quality of decision-making or the extent to which decision-makers would apply key balancing tests, in particular relating to the public interest favouring release.
The sharp reduction in the level of these fees to €30 and €50 (in the case of internal review and appeal fees respectively) is therefore, a core element of the overall package of FOI reforms.
The Deputy may also wish to note that in my meeting with the Oireachtas Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform Committee I made clear that in the context of the pre-legislative scrutiny process being carried out on the FOI reform legislation I was open to any case that may be made relating to any matter encompassed by the proposed legislation.
I wish to advise the Deputy that the Information Commissioner already has the power, in effect, to publically reprimand a public body for the performance of its responsibilities under the Act. In addition to the Information Commissioner’s conclusions on the handling of FOI requests by public bodies under the Act arising from the publication of her Decisions and the content of her Annual Report under section 40 of the Act, if the Information Commissioner considers it appropriate to do so in the public interest, she may publish a report in relation to any investigation or review carried out by her including into the practices and procedures adopted by public bodies in facilitating requestors in exercising their rights under the Act. I expect that the Information Commissioner would not hesitate to avail of this power - and others allowing her to report to the responsible Minister - in the highly unlikely circumstances that any public body essentially ignored its legal obligations under the Act which would also be likely to give rise to a criminal offence under the legislation.
I do not favour the introduction of a system of administrative sanctions such as fines for the Information Commissioner. In addition to the significant and complex legal issues that arise in relation to any such scheme, I would be concerned that such an approach has the potential to erode the positive and constructive relationship between the Information Commissioner and public bodies overall in relation to the operation of the Act and the processing of appeal cases. The Deputy will acknowledge that decision making on the release of particular records can often reflect finely balanced and carefully considered judgements. I do not believe it would be prudent or appropriate to provide a power to the Information Commissioner in such circumstances nor has the Information Commissioner sought such a power.
