Enda Kenny
Ceist:1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of those aspects of the strategic management initiative applicable to his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19568/03]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - Departmental Work Initiatives.
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:2 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the main features of the Civil Service action plan drawn up by his Department to meet the requirements of the benchmarking process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19847/03]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:3 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the action plan drawn up within his Department to fulfil the benchmarking requirements; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23084/03]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:4 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if his Department's action plan in relation to the benchmarking process has been approved by the verification group; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24770/03]
Joe Higgins
Ceist:5 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the Civil Service action plan drawn up by his Department in relation to the benchmarking process. [24878/03]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:6 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the plans and structures which have been put in place in his Department to implement requirements under benchmarking. [25363/03]
My Department has developed significant expertise and experience in all aspects of the public service modernisation programme through its lead role in the strategic management initiative since its inception. A key mechanism for monitoring the effectiveness of the implementation of the strategic management initiative in all Departments, including mine, and for verifying that targets are robust, is the performance verification group, which comprises management, trade union and independent members. Regarding the current performance verification process, each Department has developed an action plan which sets out performance indicators towards the achievement of the provisions in Sustaining Progress on co-operation with flexibility and ongoing change.
The approach taken by my Department in developing its action plan was based on the Sustaining Progress template, with the emphasis on how the human resources of the Department are managed and combined with investment in technology and organisational processes to improve performance in terms of both efficient and effective service delivery and strategy development. It is about making sure we have the skills, structures and systems to deliver improved services and strategies, while simultaneously reducing staff numbers in my Department by 4% by 2005. The high performance human resource practices outlined in the plan for my Department include both specific practices such as moving to 100% merit-based promotions and measures to secure greater engagement and commitment on the part of staff generally.
The priority areas of modernisation where the Department intends to make progress are as follows: e-Cabinet; piloting a customer charter; applying a new management information framework; getting results with a new human resource management IT system; and implementation of an integrated human resource strategy and staff development plan.
Targets in the plan have been reviewed by the performance verification group and a progress report on the actions taken since April this year has been submitted by my Department. The action plan and the performance indicators in relation to our modernisation priorities build on the progress already made by the Department, including initiatives to drive modernisation on a broad basis; measures to improve efficiency and minimise costs, through business process reviews; and measures to improve the effectiveness of our services through more efficient systems, such as the development of the social partners' extranet, which allows for communications and sharing of information securely.
Within my Department, the modernisation programme is subject to regular review. It is co-ordinated by a change management unit and monitored on a regular basis by the partnership committee and the management advisory committee, where it is a standing agenda item at all meetings. Progress in relation to modernisation is also outlined in my Department's annual progress report. To date, I am satisfied with my Department's contribution to achieving the Government's objectives through the implementation of its strategy, including the modernisation objectives.
I think the grouping of Questions Nos. 1 to 6 is wrong. The strategic management initiative is different from the benchmarking proposals. Obviously, I cannot do anything about this grouping.
Does the Taoiseach agree that the cost of benchmarking is equivalent to approximately €1,000 per household on an ongoing basis? Does he agree this is the equivalent of 3.5 points on the standard rate of income tax and that in order to pay for this, income tax will rise from 20% to 23%? Of course, the Government has not admitted this because of the implementation of stealth taxes.
What are the new changes that have been introduced where consumers will see real change and real value for the money they will have to pay? What are the changes and better benefits and services the consumer, teacher, parent or nurse will see? It appears as if the verification process of change is quite threadbare and couched in wording that means nothing. If the Taoiseach or Minister for Defence, as citizens, were asked to pay €1,000 for something every year, they would be quite entitled to ask what increased benefits or changes they were going to get for it.
Perhaps the Taoiseach will spell out some of the tangible changes that have been introduced since the commencement of this process, not ones that have been ongoing since the PCW. This is a process that will last for many years and people will have to pay not just once but every year. As taxpayers they are entitled to know what increased value for money they are to get in terms of better services.
I draw the Deputy's attention to the fact that the grouped questions refer specifically to the Taoiseach's Department.
Perhaps the Taoiseach will let us know what increased services under benchmarking are available from his Department.
Regarding my Department, the priority areas for modernisation have been discussed in my reply. The Department intends to make the e-Cabinet project, an entirely new project, central to this. It is a major technology project and would be a big undertaking for any business anywhere. It will see a move from a paper-based organisation and administration of Cabinet to electronic means. This is particularly relevant to my Department as a large part of its work relates to the presentation and preparation of what is dealt with and emerges from Cabinet. The move to electronic means is a major change. It would have been unheard of a decade ago in the Civil Service for an arrangement like that to be made by staff. It is of major significance to the entire system, not alone to my Department. This is a new project and people are engaging in it proactively.
My Department is piloting a new customer charter, something I hope to see introduced in every Department. This charter entails my Department engaging with its customer base – whether that is other Departments, the public or agencies – and setting down standards and criteria to bring about efficiency in how it deals with work. While the Revenue Commissioners use this model, no Department has it and my Department is piloting it.
We are applying a new management information framework. The benefit of this will provide us with much more extensive information about our cost base and centres. It will examine how money is spent and control costs. Hitherto there would have been broad figures but this will break those down into great detail. Cost centres must then apply and deal with efficiencies to remain under cost base. This is a major change. It is information that never would have been available in the system and units will have to live within their means under it.
We are getting results from a new human resource IT system. This is helping the system in a great way. We are implementing a human resource strategy and staff development plan. It relates to training and modernisation so that staff can give their best and we can get the best from them. An independent performance verification group has reviewed targets in the plan. This has not been done by the Secretary General or any official in my Department; it is an independent group made up of employers and unions. A progress report on the actions taken since April of this year has been submitted by my Department.
I believe there is a huge amount of misinformation about benchmarking by some. I recently heard Deputy Richard Bruton saying something on the issue that was incorrect and I want to correct him. He just does not understand the system or seems to ignore what it means. The benchmarking process started in 1999. It was a genuine attempt by the public service unions to find an alternative to the relativities and analogue systems that we had for too long. Those were not based on merit, productivity or competition. It took a long time to move to that new system – I think the talks on trying to move from relativities to benchmarking have been going on since the mid-1980s. When I was Minister for Finance I tried to make progress in this area but did not succeed in getting to a new system. This new system removes relativities and analogues.
The discussion on this system started in 1999. It was 2000 before the details were considered and the discussions did not conclude until 4 December 2001. The last payment under this round is to be made in June 2005, with 25% paid this year back to 1 December 20001, 50% from 1 January of next year and 25% from 1 June 2005. The significance of the system, which is being lost in much of the media debate, is that it gives an objective judgment of salaries for the first time. It is not based simply on the relativities of what somebody else won by strike action, muscle or disruption. It is an objective analysis done in a scientific way, looking at comparison of what people do in the public service against the skills and responsibilities they would have outside, including a pledge to have no strike action or disruption. Moreover there is agreement to modernisation, to changes, to flexibility, productivity, technology – all the things that people in the private sector say they are great at, and well done to them, yet the public service is equally commendable in these areas.
People are diligently putting in the effort to carry this through. They are also agreeing to a 4% reduction in staff. I do not see anyone in the private sector prepared to abnegate their rights in these areas without remuneration. What is being given in exchange is an enormous amount. At the same time as those reductions are made, services will be maintained or increased as we pass existing legislation. Furthermore we are changing to a system of open recruitment up to middle management AP/HEO levels in the public sector. This is a change from the traditional system of "next on the list" to merit-based promotion. New legislation covering Civil Service recruitment will come before this House in the new Billcovering all levels up to that of principal officer. The new regulations Act too, concerned with hiring and firing, will mean that the Civil Service will be dealt with not by Government but by its own peers and will also be covered by the Unfair Dismissals Act.
These are major fundamental changes in return for pay increases. People who argue against this, people who just take the private sector angle and see nothing bad in anything the private sector does to its staff, or how it shafts people or ships them, people who take a simplistic view of the public service, are wrong. Most of them do not know what they are talking about because they never worked in the public service. They should look at this more closely.
The Taoiseach has given a long dissertation but did not refer to the overall cost of this agreement being equivalent to 3.5 points on the standard rate of income tax.
I believe in a general sense that the benchmarking process could have done much for public service effectiveness. As a Member of the House neither I nor anyone else has never been given the evidence the central commission looked at. It appears to have either been shredded or kept very secret. The only outside economist who served on that commission resigned because of that fact. The awards that have been decided, ranging from 3% upwards, will be the beginning of future pay claims when the next round takes place, in whatever form it does. Moreover, the deal done in respect of the craftworkers still keeps alive the relativities that the Taoiseach referred to as having vanished.
Electronic payment in the Taoiseach's Department was to be implemented by November 2003. Is that happening, or is it is likely to happen on time? The e-Cabinet project the Taoiseach refers to was to be active by September of this year. What is the likely scale of its introduction? The Accenture consultants submitted a very comprehensive report to the Taoiseach's Department a number of months ago for the development of a national e-payment strategy which would save the Government up to €420 million assessed on an annual basis. Danny O'Hare, the chairman of the Information Society Commission, said this was a "win win" situation for the Government, but that what it required was real leadership. As the Taoiseach is in a broadminded frame this morning, does he think that since his Department is the flagship Department, he should drive this on in view of the assessed savings for the Government and for the country as a consequence?
As I stated, the e-Cabinet initiative is well advanced. The hardware for the new system has been produced. A new server room has been fitted out. There have been substantial advances in the design and software. An enterprise agreement is in place to enable the software tools for e-Cabinet use to be applied to potentially all desktops in the Civil Service. There is liaison and consultation with key players and all Departments, and implementation is continuing through the business managers' forum and the technical managers' group. Testing of the software for the first phase of the system was to take place in September in advance of the pilot, subject to successful testing of phase one of the system. I understand that has happened and is ongoing. This will entail pilot Departments altering, processing and submitting a number of memoranda using the new system. It is hoped to introduce to introduce the new electronic system to the Cabinet table sometime this month, or before Christmas. Work has already begun on development of the next phase and will expand the functionality being provided in the first phase.
Regarding e-procurement, the Department of Finance is actively pursuing implementation of a national e-procurement strategy. My Department will obviously have an input. The emphasis is on procuring management reform, supported by technology appropriate to the procurement-related spend profile of the Irish public sector. The benefits of e-procurement in management reform are maximised through the involvement of nine Government Departments in procurement improvement projects to be undertaken over the next 12 months. The projects aim to reform the way in which procurement is managed at an organisational level. The result of these projects for the participating Departments and sectors will be seen in substantially increased capacity to achieve significant savings and benefits, as adverted to by Deputy Kenny in reference to Danny O'Hare's statement.
The projects investigate and provide a practical way forward in several key areas. Organisation procurement strategy is based on a thorough understanding of the organisation spending profile, transaction patterns, key supply markets, organisation of the function within the focal entity, procurement operation and policy procedures, adoption of best practice tools and techniques, procurement-related systems including use and potential for e-procurement, and appropriate application of the knowledge and skills including addressing training and education needs. Though the policy unit of the Department of Finance is driving this, there has been enthusiastic involvement by all those involved in the national procurement policy.
Deputy Kenny also asked about e-payments. The information society commission which is based in my Department produced a report, Delivering a World Class Payments Environment, in June of this year. The report estimates that a significant migration from paper based payment channels over three to five years would generate economy-wide benefits of somewhere between €230 million and €420 million per annum. It therefore points to a strong economic rationale for development of a cohesive national strategy to co-ordinate the development of modernised payments. The e-strategy group of Secretaries General has agreed to prioritise a response to the report and bring forward the proposals as soon as possible. I have no date for when that will happen but I understand it will be in the spring.
If any of this is used on "Oireachtas Report" it will kill off the programme altogether. This is heavy going. Looking at the template for the Civil Service involvement in this, it is really impenetrable.
We are a lot further advanced than the Deputy thought.
There is no doubt about that. The Deputies are certainly a lot further advanced than I am, and I look forward to getting a glimpse of all of them around the Cabinet table with the e-Cabinet linked up. That will be an experience.
Hope springs eternal.
The Taoiseach referred to the fact that there is now outside recruitment in the Civil Service up to middle management, arising from the benchmarking arrangement. Has any attempt been made to address the deficiency that is manifest in terms of our conceiving of designing and implementing major infrastructural projects? Last week's mid-term review highlighted deficiencies which arose from the time a project was conceived to the implementation stage with several changes being made, Ministers changing their minds, including add-ons and projects coming in late and seriously over budget.
The argument could be advanced that part of the problem is that the generalist tradition in the Civil Service is not equipped to deal with this kind of project. This results in huge cost over-runs and a continuation of infrastructure logjams and so on. Are changes contemplated in that area?
Why have the PPPs collapsed? We have not yet managed to design a formula that is workable in the PPP area following five years of supposed commitment to the idea. There is no workable model that is acceptable to the private sector or that could be supported by the public sector.
The Deputy's question is not totally related. I do not have briefing on the matter. I am chairman of the Cabinet infrastructural committee. While there is a substantial amount of expertise within the public service and in all Departments in terms of dealing with large contracts, there is not enough. That is the reason, more often than not, outside consultants are brought in to engage and involve themselves in larger projects.
We have given huge resources to agencies dealing with these issues. As a result of increased resources the NRA, which had the expertise but not the people required, has been able to recruit project managers, many of whom come from South Africa where there is an over-supply of graduates in this area. We have managed to recruit many of the project management teams we required.
The question of why these difficulties arise in the public sector as opposed to the private sector was asked. While I chair the Cabinet infrastructural committee and am aware of how things operate within the system, I am not involved in the details on such issues. Everything must be done by the book. Every change has to go through the system. If there is a substantial change it must go through EU regulations and the planning process. Nobody is prepared to take a chance. Archaeological digs can only be undertaken by way of legislation.
It is my personal view – if I can still have one – that following many years of inquiries and investigations public servants no longer take the chances they may have taken in the past. It is also my personal view that going forward they will do so far less. It is a pity that is so because such people have great ability which they should show. I know it is not politically correct to say that but I believe it is a major part of the problem. Everybody will ensure the file is right and will follow proper procedure, undertaking the required archaeological digs – the fastest growing industry in this country. That does not help.
I do not offer the foregoing as an excuse. One of the benefits of benchmarking is that the public service will now be in a position openly to recruit people, though not to the level I would like. That is a substantial move. Previously, if one wanted to recruit to a Civil Service Department one was required to take the next person on the Civil Service Commission list. A person might hate the word "agriculture" and might not know one end of a cow from the other but would nevertheless end up in the Department of Agriculture and Food. Now a Department will be able to recruit directly from the market. That will permit enormous change, a change which has forced public servants reluctantly to move on. I appreciate that and thank them for doing so. In time the change will be hugely beneficial. A Department will be able to recruit a person, perhaps not at the highest level, who has an interest in the job. The Department will then at least have the chance to build its expertise. While things may not change today or tomorrow this will allow for enormous change in ten years' time or less. Departments will be able to recruit people with good IT skills who in turn will deal with many of the issues which the Deputy rightly raised.
I understand that the principles of equality, diversity, official languages equality and internal customer service are part of the strategic management initiative. Will the Taoiseach say how the official languages equality principle has affected recruitment policy in the public service, given that one would expect there to be a level of proficiency in any said section of a Department for dealing with matters in Irish and English? Perhaps the Taoiseach will explain recruitment policy in that regard.
Can the Taoiseach give us a timescale – the Minister of State referred to this earlier – on the availability of cre±che facilities, another issue covered by the strategic management initiative? What progress has been made on workshare or flexi-time arrangements? The SMI also deals with modernisation of the Civil Service and states that all Departments and offices should publish a charter of service standards and report on performance against these standards in their annual report. Have all Departments published a charter?
Would the Taoiseach like to offer any particular changes he expects the Oireachtas to make so that the public service as a whole could have credibility in terms of benchmarking?
I must point out that some of the Deputy's questions go beyond the scope of Questions Nos. 1 to 6 which refer specifically to the Taoiseach's Department.
The SMI is part of that.
I accept the question on the SMI is relevant but the others are not.
I do not have up-to-date information on worksharing or flexi-time arrangements. Departments have made many proactive moves in that regard. I will not try to guess the answers required by the Deputy. I will leave the matter to be dealt with by the Department of Finance.
Strategic management is about trying to provide better value to customers by providing a better service and a quicker turnaround by the Civil Service in dealing more efficiently with inquiries. Such work is best dealt with by civil servants. The SMI process is working well across Departments. The Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs led the way in this regard but all other Departments are now involved. Public servants are, in my experience – and I have a good deal of experience in dealing with them on this issue as the SMI and modernisation units are located in my Department – driving this change and are making a sincere effort on it.
On the question of modernisation and benchmarking, it is appropriate that this House contribute. I said yesterday that our efficiency should be monitored. First, we should try to explain what it is we do. We are not good at doing that. A good example is what happened last week in the discussions on whether this House would meet or not. A number of committees published excellent reports last week. Incidentally, the chairpersons of various committees pointed out to me that no journalist turned up at the launch of any of those reports. While some were ranting on about what we were not doing, others were issuing important reports yet they received no publication in that regard.
That point must be made. However, there are things that we can do. This is a House of legislation, and we should be able to improve our mechanisms in dealing with that – I made that point yesterday. I am very glad to support the Government Whip on that issue. We must criticise where criticism is due. Our day has been pulled back more and more by the debates and other issues.
The Taoiseach would be very welcome here on a Thursday.
There are ways of doing that. The House need not necessarily finish on a Thursday at 4.45 p.m. It could go on with legislation. We organise ourselves around it. It is very easy for me to get here in 15 or 20 minutes on most occasions. However, the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Pat The Cope Gallagher, after driving 100 miles from his door, is still in Donegal. One must be realistic and Members of the House comprise more than those who live in Dublin Central or Dublin North.
He is not the Taoiseach.
Allow the Taoiseach to speak, Deputy Sargent.
We have to work out some of those arrangements, but it is possible to do that.
I call Deputy Ó Caoláin.
What about recruitment?
On language issues, now even more so than before the Departments are trying to achieve a greatly improved position in terms of reports and dealing with queries in Irish.
I asked about recruitment.
The same rules apply to recruitment. There is no change in that. The Departments are endeavouring to have people who can deal with queries in Irish and do so more effectively. There have been complaints about that over the years.
Does the Taoiseach agree – I expect he does – with the statement from the public service committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions that if benchmarking were jettisoned now, public service reform would be set back by years? Does he agree that, rather than being a gravy train for workers in the public service, benchmarking has exacted significant concessions from public service workers that have not been recounted today, including restrictions on industrial action, one-year contracts for all new civil servants, the ending of seniority promotions and a whole range of improved services, including longer working hours? Does the Taoiseach agree that, far from benchmarking being something that should be reneged on, as Fine Gael currently advocates, we must see further investment in the public service workforce—
I want to say—
Allow the Deputy to speak.
—in order that this—
Sinn Féin are the masters of reneging.
We did not interrupt Deputy Kenny, and the record stands. His party's position on benchmarking has been shown and repeated time and again. Deputy Kenny had his opportunities and I did not choose to interrupt him.
We never used the word "renege" but "renegotiate". I ask Deputy Ó Caoláin to accept that and withdraw his remark about reneging.
Renegotiation.
There are matters that Deputy Ó Caoláin has reneged upon.
The history of Deputy Kenny's own party is not exemplary.
On a point of order—
Let me assure him that what he proposes regarding renegotiation is to roll back—
I am sorry, Deputy Ó Caoláin, Deputy Kenny wishes to raise a point of order.
Deputy Ó Caoláin should withdraw that remark about reneging on a benchmark deal. Neither I nor my party ever mentioned that. We mentioned the word "renegotiate". I ask Deputy Ó Caoláin to clarify the record on that now.
My clear interpretation of the view of Deputy Kenny and his colleagues regarding renegotiation—
Sinn Féin's clear interpretation—
Perhaps the Deputy will avoid the temptation of falling into his traditional anti-republican mode. With respect, my interpretation of his proposal for renegotiation is to roll back on the progress that has been made between the Government and public service workers, which is an absolute—
Does the Deputy have a question for the Taoiseach?
I am concluding with this point. Does the Taoiseach agree that we need improved investment in the workforce and that this must be done if we are to ensure that we have a quality – I emphasise the word "quality"– public service in health, education and all the other essential services?
The Deputy has made his point.
I was interrupted. I am sure the Ceann Comhairle will allow me—
I took note of the interruption. The Taoiseach to respond to Deputy Ó Caoláin.
I thought that the Deputies were responding to each other.
Does the Taoiseach remember my earlier point?
Yes. As I said at the outset, with benchmarking we are endeavouring to achieve a big change on the previous system, and Deputy Ó Caoláin has mentioned some of the issues involved. It is important that productivity, modernisation, changes and flexibility are given in those negotiations. It is important, when we are paying a sizeable amount of taxpayers' money, that people can see they are meaningful. As I said, the negotiations and verification groups are not all cloaks and mirrors. I reiterate that substantial changes are being made to legislation governing the public service, which in many cases goes back 50 or 60 years.
Not everyone is getting substantial payments. When there are 250,000 employees and they all get an increase that effectively runs from December 2001 to 2006, the cumulative figure looks very big. However, taken in its stages and scales, that is not the case for many people. It is forgotten that the row on which I had to hold back, particularly in the teachers' dispute, involved 30% just for one category. I am not saying that benchmarking, what is being given by public servants, is 100%, but it involves a sizeable change in their working patterns to improve the public service in a fair manner.