Enda Kenny
Ceist:1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the Nally report under the reorganisation of the Chief State Solicitor’s office; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3548/08]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Chief State Solicitor’s Office.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:2 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the progress in the reorganisation of the Chief State Solicitor’s office; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4980/08]
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:3 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the progress made to date with regard to the implementation of the Nally report on the reorganisation of the Chief State Solicitors office; if all aspects of the report have been implemented; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6173/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.
As I indicated to the House on 3 October last in response to similar questions, the implementation of the relevant recommendations of the Nally report concerning the reorganisation of the Chief State Solicitor's office was completed last year. The last recommendation to be acted upon, that responsibility for the local State solicitors should be transferred from the Office of the Attorney General to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, with legislative provision to enable the Director of Public Prosecutions to delegate to them, was implemented with effect from 15 May 2007.
The management team within the Chief State Solicitor's office keeps the organisation of the office under regular review to be able to respond to changes in caseload by redeploying staff from areas where demand for services is declining to emerging areas of work.
On 28 January this year, the Director of Public Prosecutions published on his website a document known as the Reasons Project. It was a discussion paper on prosecution policy and the provision of reasons for decisions. As the House is aware, the DPP's role is to conduct all criminal prosecutions which are serious enough to be tried before a jury. The problem is that in cases where no prosecution is taken, no reason for this is given. The question is whether it is appropriate for some reason to be given in cases where a prosecution does not take place. The question posed by the Reasons Project was whether the DPP should give reasons for decisions to prosecute or otherwise. In 1983, the then Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr. Eamonn Barnes, said he would willingly put into operation a method that would allow him to inform the public of the reasons for his decisions without doing injustice, if it were possible to devise such a method.
The Taoiseach is aware that countries with legal systems similar to Ireland's have confronted this problem and have changed practices. The Taoiseach is also aware of increasing recognition that it is desirable to inform victims of the reasons behind decisions that can profoundly affect their lives. This is a sensitive area and complex legal issues are involved.
Has the Government responded to the Reasons Project paper published by the Director of Public Prosecutions? Has the Government a view on changing the current practice whereby reasons not to prosecute are not given?
As Deputy Kenny stated, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions initiated this paper on 28 January to examine the current policy of not giving reasons to victims or the public for decisions not to prosecute. Deputy Kenny will recall, as I do, many occasions on which we heard debate relating to cases in which families felt aggrieved by this situation. On a number of occasions in recent years the Director of Public Prosecutions has acknowledged that a difficulty exists in this area, particularly when it comes to sensitive issues relating to families that feel they have been left in a vacuum by a decision.
The director invited submissions from all interested parties, including members of the public, and opinions were sought on the following questions. Should the current policy be changed? If so, should reasons be given only to those with a direct interest, such as the victims of crime or their relations? I have previously expressed sympathy for relations in these circumstances, though I can see the difficulty behind giving reasons to everyone. Should reasons be given to the public? If reasons are given, should they be general or detailed? Should reasons be given in all cases or only in certain categories of cases? If reasons should only be given in certain categories of cases, then which categories? How can reasons be given without encroaching on the constitutional right to one's good name and the presumption of innocence? This point was made often when this issue arose over the years. Should the communication of reasons attract legal privilege? Dealing with such a question could be a very complex matter. How should cases where a reason cannot be given without causing injustice be dealt with? By whom and what means should reasons be communicated?
The Director of Public Prosecutions used his experience to set out where difficulties may arise in these areas and sought submissions by 10 March. His office will now carefully consider the submissions received and formulate a view on how best to proceed. The Government has communicated often on this issue over the years and those communications will be taken into account.
Attorneys General and Government Ministers have given views on this matter but, based on my experience, I feel difficulties will arise regarding the second question I mentioned: should reasons be given only to those with a direct interest, such as the victims of crime or their relations? This is a question with which I have been confronted and it is the one that tends to cause the most concern. Some would say that some or all of the questions will raise difficulties but I feel this question is most difficult. Ultimately, the victims of crime and their direct relatives are the people who suffer; everyone else can move on. In many high-level cases, victims of crime are deceased and their relations are left in a vacuum and I would like to see such cases addressed.
I share the Taoiseach's view in that regard. Prior to the election last year I was shocked by the scale of hurt felt by a woman who was abused in her childhood years. Eventually when the case was sent before the Director of Public Prosecutions she was informed, not by the DPP but by the abuser, that a prosecution was not being taken, which, as the Taoiseach rightly says, is appalling. If the Taoiseach is minded to change this practice, as I would be, is there a view that communications should attract legal privilege when they are given? Has consideration been given to the question of how to deal with cases where a reason cannot be given without an injustice being undermined? Those are two issues that require some consideration if the practice is to be changed.
I will move to a separate question if I may. Yesterday the civil case began in the case of the Omagh bomb and the victims thereof. It seems as if this is the only recourse to justice and truth the family members of those who were murdered in that horrible atrocity will get. The Taoiseach is aware that the Supreme Court determined that the transcripts of the trials held here should be handed over as evidence or back-up information in respect of this case. He is aware also that the civil actions are for in the order of €14 million against a number of members. In respect of this jurisdiction, can I take it that the resources of the State and whatever evidence is available to it in terms of the Garda, these transcripts and other documentation that may be available will be provided to the victims of the Omagh bomb in respect of their taking this civil case? Is the Taoiseach happy that that will be so and will he commit himself to ensure it will happen?
We are stretching it a bit, Deputy.
On the first question, we all await the deliberations of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It is good that he is taking this initiative. The submissions are now in and we just have to await the process and what will be decided. Obviously there are large legal issues around these questions, the issue of privilege and others, but at least we are into a process, the outcome of which we await.
I was asked a large number of questions by the Omagh families, including Mr. Gallagher, who have fought a very intense case on this issue for a number of years. I have asked all the different arms of the State to co-operate with them. I confess there is reluctance in some areas because of all kinds of complexities and legal issues as to how things can be given, but I do not propose to go into all of those. I have asked everyone to co-operate as fully as possible to assist them. We know they are not totally happy in regard to those issues, but at least I have tried, as best I can, to give them all the information and to explain the process to get into if we cannot give them the information directly. Obviously this is very important for them because it is very difficult, ten years on from Omagh, for the families to get a process whereby somebody can be brought to justice and, in many cases, even if people are not brought to justice, that they can see that the matter is fully dealt with. I have answered their correspondence and I have asked people across the system, in so far as they can, to explain to them the process through which they can the maximum information.
The Taoiseach made commendable efforts in respect of the Dublin-Monaghan bombings to bring some finality and closure to that issue, which had gone on for a very long time. As he rightly pointed out, the Omagh bombing took place ten years ago. I commend the Taoiseach's action in making available whatever he can to these victims. I met with Michael Gallagher, as the Taoiseach did, and those people and that pain and hurt will be with them for the rest of their lives. It is very important, in so far as justice and truth can be followed through, that the action the Taoiseach has instructed takes place. I commend the Taoiseach in that regard.
On the last occasion the Taoiseach answered questions on the Office of the Chief State Solicitor and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, he indicated that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions would carry out an assessment of additional staff necessary to pursue prosecutions for breaches of fisheries regulations. Will the Taoiseach indicate if this review has been carried out, if additional staff have been recruited to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and if he is aware of the great anger and resentment in fishing communities that the Government chose a criminal analysis of breaches rather than an administrative range of penalties? There is a strong sense that fishing communities have been criminalised and that this is both inappropriate and not representative of all states' actions in this regard. What is the current situation and what steps have been taken to address staff needs? Is it in that particular vein that new recruitment has taken place and does the Taoiseach have any intention of revisiting the legislation in respect of breaches of the fishing regulations?
On the first question, last year the Minister for Finance approved 28 new permanent posts and one contract post for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to take account of the increase in the volume and complexity of work undertaken by the office, as referred to during Question Time that day, and the fact that new areas of work have emerged, which must be addressed. The staff have been employed, bringing the total authorised staff complement of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to 204. Filling of additional posts was sanctioned last year. The process was slow initially due to difficulties in securing accommodation for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, but I understand the office has continued to recruit staff, notwithstanding accommodation difficulties. The office currently has eight staff vacancies and five solicitors in the process of appointment. Practically all of them are there, bringing it up to the full complement.
In addition to the new staff sanctioned last year, the director is in communication with the Courts Service and the Departments of Finance and Justice, Equality and Law Reform with regard to further staff required to implement a range of initiatives under the Criminal Justice Act. These had not arisen at that time and represent additional work. I understand the number of additional staff has not been considered in the consultation between the two Departments and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, but the additional workload has been identified.
The director is examining the extra staff that will be required to have responsibility with regard to the Deputy's second question. Responsibility for sea fisheries protection has been transferred to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions from the Attorney General. As part of that, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has a team in her Department examining the issue of administrative sanctions under fisheries legislation. With the necessary legal advice the Minister will come to a decision on that in due course.
From the Taoiseach's latter response, do I take it that there is currently a review of sanctions for breaches of fisheries regulations and that the Minister is examining the alternative of administrative sanctions as against criminal sanctions? Can the Taoiseach be specific and clear in that regard? This is a serious matter. A whole section of society dependent on the fishing industry believes it has been criminalised, which is the sanction it will face if in breach.
Concerning recruitment, the Taoiseach has indicated vacancies, but have new positions been created? The Taoiseach referred to eight vacancies and five solicitors in the process of being appointed, but have new positions been created in either the Office of the Chief State Solicitor or the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions? If so, why is there a recruitment embargo in some areas under broad public service-Civil Service responsibilities but not in these particular cases? I refer specifically to the Health Service Executive.
The staff levels continue to increase in most of these areas. In recent years, the HSE has received thousands of additional staff. We are not talking here about a small number. There were 28 new permanent posts approved.
On the fisheries issue, I understand that there is no alteration of or change in the present legislation, but there is an internal examination by the Minister of the administrative sanctions. Obviously, it takes into account the views of the stakeholders.
Last August when the DPP published his annual report, he stated that his office was struggling to provide advice to the Government on major legal issues, including proposed legislation, due to staff shortages. He raised the necessity of a fully resourced prosecution policy unit to cope with the increase in prosecution work that would be required.
Will the filling of the vacancies described in the Taoiseach's reply to Deputy Ó Caoláin and the vacancies under discussion between the DPP and the Departments of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Finance be sufficient to meet the full staffing requirement of the DPP's office? Will the Taoiseach assure the House that prosecutions will not be delayed as a result of staff shortages in the DPP's office?
When these questions were answered by the Taoiseach earlier this year, he told the House that there were 14.5 vacancies in the Chief State Solicitor's office. Have they been filled?
I would be loath to say to Deputy Gilmore that we will ever reach a position where there are no more demands for staff in this area. It seems to be almost endless every year. With the exception of the range of initiatives in the criminal justice sector that are being considered, all of the other demands have been met, but there is a request for a number of additional staff — it is not yet clear what number — to deal with changes we have made in the House to the criminal justice sector. We are now up to a complement — there has been a very large increase over the past four or five years — of 204.
The Chief State Solicitor's office has recruited additional staff that were also approved last year. Currently, it has a staff complement of 249 full-time equivalents. A number of vacancies exist in the office and it is in the process of filling them in the normal way. I understand that there are 17 vacancies at present covering posts at solicitor, legal executive, administrative and clerical levels. The office is working with the Public Appointments Service and the Department of Finance regarding the options available for recruiting these staff, but this movement and turnover is not unusual. Many people go into those offices to gain experience for a number of years and move on, so there is a lot of career movement in the area. The Chief State Solicitor's office complement is 249 and the DPP's is 204, which are very sizable increases above where we were just four or five years ago.
Has the Taoiseach received reports, either directly from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions or through the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, that prosecutions are being delayed as a result of staff shortages in the former?
While there are always some problems, as I understand it, this issue has not been highlighted to me in the recent past. This was a constant issue before completion of the reforms four or five years ago. However, the issue has not been brought to my attention in recent times.
While considering the reorganisation of the Office of the Chief State Solicitor, will the Taoiseach consider establishing a practice whereby all Departments involved in legal actions should report to the Chief State Solicitor's office the details of such actions? I raise this matter because a Supplementary Estimate for more than £3 million was considered recently at a finance committee. When inquiries were made, half of the sum, £1.5 million, was in respect of legal costs. The report stated that on the advice of senior counsel, it was now recommended that the Department should settle for the sum of £3 million. This matter dragged on for years, to the point at which, if memory serves, costs had accumulated to £1.5 million, although the matter should have been settled immediately. At the end of the aforementioned period, a senior counsel advised the Department in question to settle this action. Had the matter been tracked properly, the taxpayers could have been saved more than £3 million — I refer to pounds, not euro.
The Chief State Solicitor's office should be a centre to which all such outstanding claims in various Departments are reported and where a decision should be taken as to whether claims should be settled, instead of being dragged out as the file is moved from one person's desk to another. People retire, the matter continues and someone else comes in. The Ceann Comhairle is familiar with this practice. While examining the Chief State Solicitor's office, the Taoiseach should put in place some measure that would save the taxpayer considerable moneys.
I take Deputy Barrett's point. Approximately three or four years ago, the then Attorney General started a mandatory process entailing the notification on a regular basis of any significant case within any Department or being processed by any Department of the Office of the Attorney General so that office can track it. I do not know what is the benchmark figure. This pertains not to every case but to every significant case. I understand there is an obligation to report such cases to the Attorney General a few times a year. Such a process was not in place and the then Attorney General started it, maybe not as a result of the case to which Deputy Barrett referred, but similar cases of which the Attorney General's office was not aware. However, that process is now in place and the only aspect about which I am unsure is the benchmark figure.
My point is that the Office of the Chief State Solicitor is more in keeping with each individual case up to the point at which senior counsel opinion is sought. That office is involved from the outset. I respectfully suggest the Taoiseach should investigate the possibility of having such cases recorded in the Chief State Solicitor's office rather than in the Office of the Attorney General. While the offices can communicate with each other, small cases become big cases because solicitors write to other solicitors. It is only at a certain point that a senior counsel's opinion is brought into action. The Taoiseach will find this is happening in local authorities throughout the State and God only knows how much money is being spent by local authorities in dragging out cases.
I have no difficulty with that and I will bring to the attention of the Attorney General the issue of where this links in with the Chief State Solicitor's office. Deputy Barrett is correct, as litigation into this, that and the other is the order of the day and due to the volume of cases, tracking is a more difficult issue. I am unsure where that kicks in with the Chief State Solicitor's office, perhaps it does, but I will bring that point to the attention of the Attorney General.
Strategic Management Initiative.
Enda Kenny
Ceist:4 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the progress made to date by the quality customer service working group established within his Department under the strategic management initiative; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3550/08]
The development, promotion and implementation of the quality customer service, QCS, initiative has been driven in recent years mainly by two groups, the QCS officers' network and the QCS research group, both of which meet four or five times each year. The QCS officers' network continues to work intensively on the development and implementation of a range of customer service issues, including promotion of the customer charter approach. This is an important initiative whereby public service organisations publicly commit to service standards and then measure and report on progress made.
Arising from the recent review of customer charters, revised guidelines for the preparation of charters and customer action plans have been produced and will be published shortly. The QCS research group has recently been involved in the development of a major survey of customer satisfaction levels and attitudes towards the Civil Service. Such surveys will now be conducted on an annual basis beginning with a survey of general public customers to commence in the coming weeks. A similar survey of business customers will be undertaken later this year.
A new task force on customer service has also been established to consider and bring forward proposals on how best to enhance and deepen the quality of customer service in key front line areas of the Civil Service and wider public service, as well as to consider the various commitments to customer service made in the programme for Government. This task force, which is made up of senior officials from Departments, offices and agencies, is chaired by the Secretary General of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The task force has met four times since it was set up last September and will submit its final report in early 2009.
Over the years, we have often raised the question of the efficiency of the public service from the perspective of customer convenience. Out of 100 public offices surveyed by Deputy Varadkar, only three were open on Saturdays, three were open after 6 p.m. and a large number were found not to meet normal office opening hours. For example, the public planning counters in the four Dublin local authorities close by 4.30 p.m. and in Fingal and Meath county councils they close at 3.30 p.m.
From that perspective and taking into account the e-government project, in respect of which no formal strategy appears to have been devised, what practical plans or proposals have been made to improve efficiency and convenience for customers under the strategic management initiative for which the Taoiseach's Department has overall authority? Given the busy schedules and working lives of the vast majority of people, does the Taoiseach agree that all modern technologies should be made available to them so they can conduct their business with the State more conveniently and professionally? Does he have other proposals in mind based on the e-government concept and, if so, when will these be rolled out?
In regard to accessibility, both in terms of hours and physical accessibility, the Office of Public Works has been working on that issue for the past 15 years. The OPW is responsible for physical access to 2,000 properties and it has campaigned actively on making them more accessible. This took up a lot of its efforts and resources over many years. That programme is fairly complete except for some very difficult offices.
A large number of public offices are opening longer, particularly during lunchtimes. I pressed hard on this over the years and, whatever about evenings or mornings, I do not think there is an argument in respect of lunchtime. It is easy to organise access to offices at lunchtime by leaving a staff member on duty.
The increasing use of information technology has meant that information and, in some cases, transactions can be provided over the internet outside of office hours. The Revenue Commissioners, the Department of Social and Family Affairs and farm payments are now available on a 24-seven basis and are being used extensively. The increase in the level of use of on-line systems in all of these offices is quite dramatic, although this needs to be extended further.
There are new initiatives in many Departments across the system which are trying to use the best practice developed in Revenue, the Department of Social and Family Affairs and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and to open up these services. Two years ago, I announced a package of new initiatives for the implementation group, which is leading the modernisation agenda and is mainly being driven at Secretary General level. The overall objective of this is to ensure that the right people are in the right place at the right time to service the needs of citizens.
There has been dramatic improvement. Approximately 200 staff have been put forward this year for the public service awards, which acknowledge new initiatives, and these come mainly from among staff internally examining the modernisation process and where they can improve services. To be fair to our public and civil servants, they are dealing with that aspect. It is also important that, where some Departments bring forward these initiatives, they are then taken as best practice and implemented in other Departments. Many of these initiatives are the work of one or two people who then win support within a section of a Department. A substantial amount of work and activity is taking place, and not just in the technology area.
The idea of physically opening up in the evening is not one that receives support. Most of the other offices across these areas are not open on Saturdays and the public service unions are, by and large, not in favour of it. However, to their credit, they have supported the initiatives in the technology area, which can probably satisfy most of the requirements.
Does the Taoiseach agree that we should set a target date — I suggest 1 January 2011 — when e-services should be available on-line both to customers and businesses and ensure that target date is implemented? For the convenience of the customer, there could be on-line payment of court fines, student grants, passport applications, an e-register, on-line social welfare schemes and so on. Some of these happen reasonably well but there does not seem to be an overall plan which states what will be available at the end of three years with regard to on-line services for business only and on-line services for customers only. Will the Taoiseach comment? Does he agree we should set a target date and agree, when laying down the instruction and the direction, that by a certain date e-government should apply in the following range for customers and for business?
I do not suppose the Taoiseach has had a requirement in recent years to pick up the State telephone directory and make telephone calls because he has had staff to do this for him. If he did so, he would find there are 70 pages of the directory dealing with Government Departments and State agencies. It is virtually impossible for somebody who does not use the telephone directory frequently to find the compass to access the number of the agency or organisation they seek. I have often tried it myself. One needs to think hard about where the organisation will be in the green pages. This kind of issue requires clearer labelling or greater definition so people can conduct their business instead of wasting time flicking through pages in the attempt to find a certain regional board, agency or organisation. It is an area somebody could usefully spend time sorting out. The Taoiseach could tell me if he has used a directory in the recent past.
It sounds like a job for 11811.
If there were half the quangos, there would be half the pages.
I must confess I use 11811. It gets me everywhere very quickly.
I know that. Sometimes one cannot get through.
They are amazingly fast at finding everywhere. The issue is hugely complex, which is probably why people use other services. On the Deputy's first point, whatever about a date for everybody, all of the groups, which are mainly being driven by the senior civil servants and public servants in Revenue, have done much work on this in terms of pressing the reforms and their customer service initiatives which are considered to be probably the best in Europe. Many Departments are trying to build on this. For five or six years the Department of Finance has given Departments very good financial assistance in developing on-line services. Access to many of the services has been enhanced through information technology. The benefit of that is it allows 24-hour access to information and services in the Civil Service and public service. That is the way we are going and should continue to go.
The motor tax on-line system did not exist five or six years ago and now a large part of this business is done at weekends and at night time. I referred to the e-services operated by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. There was a time when Members were constantly raising in the House the delays in grant payments and whether they would be paid by Christmas. All of these issues have long been put on-line. Livestock registration, identification and movement are on-line and are being used extensively by the agriculture sector.
All of these systems have facilitated easier and more efficient compliance as well. For example, for the past five years the business sector has had the benefit of the Revenue on-line service, which is outstanding. It has speeded up and dealt with tax compliance in a way that was not possible previously. In excess of 90% of revenue business is dealt with through the on-line service. All of the major companies deal with Revenue exclusively through the use of information technology. The on-line system has gone from having very low figures to a situation where all of the corporation tax regime is on-line with the exception of a small number of companies. The on-line service has been rolled out recently to PAYE workers. A range of services are available, including the claiming of credits and allowances, the on-line receipt for reviews of one's tax position and the on-line reviewing of one's tax record, with the later ones being rolled out as well.
Regarding opening hours and examining the continuation of the services, there is the General Register Office and the visa office in the Department of Foreign Affairs and also the single payment issues in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. More and more of the State agencies should be pulled together to deal with these issues. An initiative I have tried to press myself, which I hope will be continued, is to try to cut down the administration in Departments' payroll areas. With modern technology there is no need for every Department or agency of the public service to have its own personnel department and payments records. My Department's entire payroll is done on the payroll system of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Massive savings are possible within a Department through being able to use the services of other Departments. From an administrative point of view, the more we can use bigger systems the more we will cut down on the deployment of staff.
In spite of all the worries and concerns, when one brings in these systems they work out fine and one never hears about them again. It is just a matter of making a decision to do them. We have been doing that and it has worked most effectively in my Department.
The Taoiseach mentioned in his first reply to Deputy Kenny that the quality customer service, QCS, research group has been carrying out some survey work on customer satisfaction and public attitudes towards the Civil Service and public service. Will the Taoiseach indicate to the House what kind of conclusions have been reached in this research work, whether there are any headline results that he can share with us, or if he has any plans to publish the research findings that have been made?
I notice the Taoiseach put some emphasis on the development of customer charters etc. I put it to the Taoiseach that the whole process of reform in the public service and Civil Service is being so formalised that it is becoming an institutional problem in its own right. The more we move into customer charters, the more we develop a practice of box-ticking. While I welcome the Taoiseach's comments on the development of a system of awards, we need to develop an approach to the public service based on encouraging problem-solving and a break-out from the cautious culture innate to all large organisations, which we continue to have.
In that regard, as we move further into the area of e-Government, on-line services and so on, is there not a danger that the public service and those working in it will become more inaccessible to the public? When one goes on-line, one does not see or hear anybody. This is fine for doing business but when one tries to make a telephone call on foot of such business, one must select from many options and press different buttons. Is there any chance that members of the public would have an element of access to those making decisions in order that the different, very discrete services which can be provided on-line would be joined up and explained to them?
On the first question, the customer charters are all about providing friendly, efficient and courteous service to customers. Departmental officials continually inform me at meetings that this is the function of charters. Annual surveys are carried out to monitor performance against these and other commitments. My Department has been conducting these surveys for a long time based on customer groups and the use of other evaluation methods, including mystery shopping, customer feedback, focus groups and all kinds of great ideas — although I am not sure how great they are. This is the modern way to check all these issues. While I have seen results for Revenue, Social and Family Affairs and my Department, I would not claim to be an expert on other Departments and offices. However, the surveys constantly show high customer satisfaction ratings and identify sharply areas where improvements can be made.
The Deputy mentioned that it is always nice to see a human face or hear a human voice and find someone to whom one can get back. This is an important part of the process, as has been made clear.
I am not the world's greatest expert in technology by a long shot but those who push information technology and e-Government state that the more one deals with ordinary data collection through technology, the more one is able to use front-line staff to engage with the public. Departments are making efforts in this regard. I have long held the view that it saves offices a great deal of trouble to have good people on the telephones and on the front line because they can competently deal with a case from start to finish, whereas junior staff providing front-line services will refer the matter to somebody else. It is far better to have senior people to do this job. Offices where this is done provide a far better service to the public because someone who comes in with a query will have it dealt with fully, rather than being told he or she is in the wrong office, should go elsewhere or return another time.
It sounds like what Ministers are doing.
Ministers never do that. They resolve everything instantly.
It is a challenge for the system. In fairness, public servants come out strongly in examinations of what the public, both businesses and individuals, think of them. The big effort with the customer quality initiative has been and will be to find out where the flaws are, particularly when dealing with the public, and deal with them. There are many challenges in this area not necessarily in Departments, but also in health, education and other areas with which we must deal.