Enda Kenny
Ceist:1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the progress made by the quality customer service working group in his Department established under the strategic management initiative; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43891/06]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Strategic Management Initiative.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:2 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he has commissioned the OECD to study the public service; the terms of reference of this study; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1126/07]
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:3 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the terms of the reference of the review of the public service that he has asked the OECD to undertake; when it is expected that the review will be completed; the expected cost of the review; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1352/07]
Joe Higgins
Ceist:4 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the purpose of his invitation to the OECD to undertake a major review of the public service. [1605/07]
Dan Boyle
Ceist:5 Mr. Boyle asked the Taoiseach the brief given to the OECD to deliver an audit of Civil Service working practices; the timeframe the OECD has been asked to deliver this audit in; and if it will form the basis for fundamental public management reforms. [4070/07]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, together.
In December 2006, the Government approved a major review of the public service, which is being undertaken by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD. Its two main objectives are to benchmark the public service against those in other comparable countries and to make recommendations on future directions for public service reform.
The review's terms of reference have been published and are available on my Department's website. For the OECD to develop this systems level approach and to apply it in the first instance to Ireland, we are increasing our contribution to the OECD on a once-off basis by €490,000. I expect the review to be completed by the end of 2007.
A high level steering group of senior officials, chaired by the Secretary General of my Department, is overseeing the review. There is a consultation dimension to the review and appropriate arrangements will be put in place to allow stakeholders and interested parties to contribute their views.
While the review is not a detailed audit of individual sectors, such as health, education, local government, it is examining the effectiveness of arrangements through which Government objectives are translated into outputs and outcomes. It is focussing on the connections between the different sectors, including the links between Departments, offices and local government, the health and education sectors, with a particular focus on delivery of quality public services.
Since the introduction of the strategic management initiative in 1997, significant change and modernisation has already taken place in the public service. It is timely to begin to map out a new phase of the change and modernisation programme, building on the significant change that has occurred.
Work is continuing on change and modernisation and ongoing improvements are being made through the quality customer service initiative. Considerable progress has been made in this, including the development of core customer service principles, development of action plans by each Department and office, and improvement of complaints procedures and clearer appeals systems. I accept further improvements are needed. Public service organisations must constantly respond to and anticipate the needs of an increasingly diverse and demanding customer base, who as citizens, rightly expect, that they will receive the highest standards of service from their public servants.
Several groups are actively working in this area. The quality customer service officers' network continues to work intensively on the development and promotion of the customer charter initiative, including its extension to bodies under the aegis of Departments and offices. The charter process is an important initiative whereby public service organisations are asked to publicly commit to service standards and report on progress made. To ensure the charters are being adopted and used consistently across Departments and offices, an independent assessment is being undertaken by external consultants. A report is expected in the coming weeks and this will inform the next phase of the customer charter process and help to embed it further in public service organisations.
The quality customer service research group was involved in the commissioning of a major survey of customer satisfaction levels and attitudes towards Departments and offices. The results were published in 2006 and are available on the change and modernisation website, www.bettergov.ie. Further surveys will be undertaken as they provide important information about the levels of satisfaction and the quality of services being delivered.
Awareness of the importance of better customer service is increasing across the public service. For example, last year in Dublin Castle, I presented 20 public service excellence awards to projects that made a significant contribution in this area. These awards are made every two years and submissions for the 2008 awards will be invited from across the public service towards the end of this year. The winning projects last year were selected from more than 150 applications, almost all of which were making a real improvement to the services being delivered on the ground in key areas such as health, education and local government services.
If one were to decipher the reply and translate it into reality, matters would seem very different on the ground. The reply is very far removed from the reality. The late John Boland, when dealing with public service reform, introduced a requirement that one could read the signatures on all letters emanating from public service offices and that the public could make contact with the signatory or signatories. From many of the letters I receive, this requirement seems to have gone by the wayside as many of the signatures are illegible.
Many planning offices in local authorities are cramped, with people whispering their business to officials. Last week, an accident and emergency consultant at Beaumont Hospital informed me that he must assess patients in the department in front of other patients, leaving them with no privacy or dignity. Many doctors tell me they have to carry out physical examinations in full view of other patients. This is what the review should examine. Taxpayers who look for a public service should expect a certain standard that respects their privacy and dignity. I know the Taoiseach would aspire to the highest standards.
One principle of the quality customer service for customers and clients of the Civil Service, states that it should "provide clean, accessible public offices that ensure privacy, comply with occupational and safety standards and, as part of this, facilitate access for people with disabilities and others with specific needs". What is the extent of public buildings that do not have access for persons with disabilities? It is difficult to make practical access available in some older Government buildings because they have preservation orders. Has an audit been undertaken of public buildings in which preservation orders have not applied that do not have access for persons with disabilities?
Most of the work on the initiative has gone on over many years. The steering groups involved mainly comprise officials, Secretaries General from the Civil Service and the Revenue Commissioners. They are pressing the initiative out to agencies under the aegis of the Civil Service. They have improved staff training, undertaken modernising public service premises, ensure people are treated with courtesy and dignity and are able to identify who is dealing with what. They have basically followed the principles set down in the customer charter process. The steering groups meet regularly, if not weekly, and press on with improving standards and other matters such as the simplification of forms and dealing with the public in a helpful way. They have made much progress. I accept the Deputy's point is valid, that a member of the public should be able to ring a section and speak to named individuals. I will raise the point made by Deputy Kenny on signatures.
The initiative is being extended to bodies under the aegis of Departments and offices. The OECD review will examine the links between the various sectors, Departments and offices and local government, health and education sectors with a particular focus on delivery of quality public services. The review will be completed this year. A range of meetings have already taken place between key civil servants and the OECD. Various committees have been established, mainly at assistant secretary level, to examine best practice in other countries. Other countries have embarked on these reviews and many models are available, so we will not have to reinvent the wheel. It is therefore a case of opening the Civil Service and forging links to achieve better standards and practices. That process has started at a Government level and should be complete by the end of the year. It will be next year before the OECD report is ready.
I do not have a figure for the buildings. However, I know that last year when we published the sectoral plans for the disabilities lobby, very few Government or public buildings were not covered. There are some specific problems, but most buildings are now readily accessible. One reason for the sectoral plans was to try to eliminate other difficulties, inequalities and deficiencies in Departments and agencies. Those covered everything from buses to health clinics.
Under the sectoral plans there is now a commitment to deal with those issues within a fixed period. Although I cannot remember all the detail, the general view at the meetings was that if the sectoral plans were implemented, that would by and large eliminate the difficulties. While there might be some very old buildings where compliance would be difficult, it would be true of most services, and certainly in the case of all those introduced in recent years. Those are included and offer good access.
Regarding communications, as one goes around public buildings, one always wishes that there might be another way and that officials might deal with people in private rooms rather than talking through screens and barriers, which can be quite intimidating. Of course, staff will give one all sorts of reasons it should be so, but it is not my favourite atmosphere. None of us in the House does that when we have our clinics, at which we must all deal with difficult people on occasion. We do not place barriers between us. It is a little unfortunate, but staff unions and associations are very reluctant to change, since if there are incidents, members are not very receptive to new ideas. They say that they do it where possible, but there are many reasons they cannot.
The Taoiseach is never so happy as when speaking about this problem. I do not know whether that is because I cannot understand it. I will reserve judgment until I read his answer, which I could not understand either.
Usually I have nothing to do with this question, which is decided entirely at the level of the Civil Service.
Perhaps that is part of the problem. Since when did the OECD have any expertise in this area? Is it recruiting consultants in Ireland? I will reserve judgment until I read the Taoiseach's answer, but I am still not clear what the review will do. Perhaps he might put it into simpler English. Does it take the OECD to provide citizens with the opportunity to dial someone in the public service and get a human being on the end of the telephone? People of advanced years are often told to push the hash or star key, and then dial 333 and so on. That is extraordinary; when it comes to delivery of service, it would be tremendous if we could assure the public of a human response.
Does it take the OECD to improve the normal service of the Garda Síochána? The Taoiseach is well aware that there are parts of this city where citizens must dial 999 if they want a garda to reply. I recently heard of the case of a father and son who visited a Garda station by appointment. The inspector who was to meet them was not there. That can happen, and there may have been a good reason. However, they had been at the counter for 22 minutes when the young man used his mobile telephone to dial the Garda station to get the garda from behind the counter to come out and ask them what they wanted.
That was when he was in the station.
That kind of thing is driving citizens demented.
I believe that I recently read that some bright spark in the public service wanted to dig out the Chamber and install a new one for us with plywood and modern gadgetry. I sincerely hope that the Taoiseach will not permit that. There is absolutely no need to dig out the Chamber just because someone wishes us to be an intelligent island at the leading edge of technology, as happened in the case of the electronic voting machines. That is so much nonsense.
Under the 1924 Act, taoisigh are responsible for all actions of all 350,000 civil servants every day and everywhere. I had therefore better not say that I am not responsible.
It is not about that, as I will try to explain. The Deputy will be familiar with good customer service and the various subgroups in the Departments, each of which has a departmental charter. Civil servants are meant to spend a set amount of time dealing with queries regarding what they do and how they deal and communicate with the public. That work is done well. The Revenue Commissioners and social welfare offices have been the two sectors to take a lead and drive on work with other Departments. Independent customer surveys have produced extraordinary figures for public satisfaction regarding Departments' service. Not everywhere is that good, but they are doing well. The general view on that end of the work is that they must keep at it. That is ongoing, with two committees working on it.
The OECD review is not simply another report on the public service but the first comprehensive review of it as a system in this country. The concept is of a holistic, wide-ranging assessment that will identify many different things. It has been explained to me in discussions with those involved that no experts have been engaged in Ireland and that OECD staff conduct this work in different countries themselves. They have produced reports on various issues.
The first of two main elements they attempt to gauge is how the Irish public service compares with those recognised in OECD countries as following good practice in aspects of public management. That uses the unique insights of the OECD in the field, since it covers all those member countries and knows the models and plans. The organisation benchmarks the best. It compares our systems and processes with the best models. Its staff come here and engage with our Secretaries General and a committee of assistant secretaries from the different Departments. That first process has already commenced, with several meetings held in recent months.
The second element is how the various parts of our system relate to each other, a major issue dating back to the Public Service Management Act 1997. They cannot be independent fiefdoms but must co-ordinate with each other. The OECD scrutinises the relationship between central and local government and how Departments translate objectives into actions, whether the field be health or local government. In particular, it examines health and education to see if there are better ways in which common issues can be addressed. When I undertook the review, I asked it to give me two examples, which turned out to be child care and social inclusion, both of them split between many different Departments and agencies.
That is the purpose of the review, and the senior levels of the Civil Service believe that it will help. They are satisfied with what they did in the public service reform 20 years ago and the Public Service Management Act 1997. They now believe that this is the next level. It would be beneficial to examine how the systems relate to each other. In my view, one works for the public service rather than for Department A or B. I hope that simplifies matters for the Deputy.