Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

JOINT COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 27 Jul 2005

Department of the Taoiseach Strategy Statement 2005-07: Presentation.

The next item on the agenda is a discussion with representatives from the Department of the Taoiseach on its strategy statement for 2005 to 2007. As members will be aware, when this discussion is concluded, we will have a similar debate with representatives from the Department of Finance. The committee is joined by Mr. Dermot McCarthy, Secretary General, and other officials from the Department. On behalf of the committee I welcome the officials and thank them for attending today.

Before the discussion begins, I remind witnesses that while the comments of members of the committee are protected by parliamentary privilege, those of visitors are not so protected. I remind the committee that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against any person outside the Houses of the Oireachtas. We will commence with a short presentation from Mr. McCarthy. This will be followed by an open discussion with members of the committee.

I thank the Chairman. We are glad of the opportunity to address the committee on the strategy statement for the Department of the Taoiseach for the period ahead. It aims to set out a direction for the Department's activities for the period ending 2007. This is the fifth strategy statement we have prepared. In this one we have sought, in particular, to demonstrate our capacity to add value to the effective functioning of Government by strengthening our efforts to show how we contribute towards ensuring that maximum value is achieved from public expenditure in terms of defined outputs and outcomes.

Given its central role in support of policy co-ordination, especially in cross-cutting issues, the Department faces a unique challenge in seeking to achieve outcomes for which, in many cases, it does not have direct responsibility. Nevertheless, the link between inputs, outputs and outcomes are more clearly identified in this document than heretofore and we will continue develop this approach over the period of this strategy statement.

Our overall strategic objective is to support the Taoiseach, Ministers and the rest of the Government in carrying out their constitutional statutory functions. We do this in three ways. First, we support the efficient functioning of Government by providing a secretariat to the Government, liaising with the President and the Houses of the Oireachtas and providing Government press and information services. Second, we support Government policy direction and the co-ordination of major national priorities by providing the Taoiseach and Ministers with an overview of key policy priorities, providing timely and relevant information and advice as well as support for longer-term vision and approach. The priority policy areas identified in the current strategy statement are as follows: Northern Ireland; EU and international affairs; economic and social policy; social partnership; public service modernisation; and the knowledge society and e-Government. Third, we provide administrative support to the Taoiseach and Ministers, including private office, corporate and protocol services, as well as the drafting of speeches and messages, preparation of replies to parliamentary questions and the managing of responses to freedom of information requests.

By its nature, the Department is heavily influenced by the priorities of the Taoiseach and Government of the day. Our objectives and priorities are framed in the context of both the external and internal environment in which we operate and how we propose to anticipate, respond to and influence changes in accordance with Government policy.

Among the factors which influence how our objectives are framed are: the need to continue to make progress towards the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement; manage Ireland's economic and social progress in an increasingly interconnected world, ensuring that employment remains high and, on the basis of sustainable growth, pursuing the development of a fair and inclusive society; meet growing expectations of the citizen for new and higher quality public services while also achieving value for money; continue to maintain and develop social partnership; give effect to the ongoing work to pursue national priorities within an ever more effective European Union, including achieving the aims of the Lisbon Agenda and tackling the challenges and opportunities of globalisation through engagement with the wider world; and be at the forefront of science and technology internationally to build on knowledge society developments during the last decade.

A key focus of the current strategy statement is to show that we are achieving maximum value for money through the delivery of quality outputs and by linking these to outcomes. When I appeared before this committee recently I briefed members on the implementation of the modernisation programme across the Civil Service. I will now outline how this wider modernisation agenda is being implemented within my Department to achieve our overall aim of delivering quality services on a value-for-money basis.

In general, the Department does not deliver programmes or services to the public in the same way as other Departments. Nevertheless, we interact with a broad spectrum of stakeholders, including members of the Government, other public representatives, other Departments, offices and agencies, the institutions and political parties in Northern Ireland, other governments and international institutions, and a wide range of actors from outside the public service, such as the social partners. Our customer base differs from other Departments, therefore, but our objective is the same — to provide quality services and value for money.

The Department published its customer charter last year and, since then, we have employed a number of mechanisms to measure whether we are meeting the standards set out in the charter. These include annual customer surveys, so-called "mystery shopping" exercises, and independent audits and evaluations of our services. The findings of these surveys show significantly high satisfaction ratings with the quality of the Department's services and the efficiency and courtesy of its staff. The findings highlight the dedication of our staff to providing a quality service.

However, we are conscious that this excellent standard of service needs to be maintained and we constantly examine the scope for improvement. In this context, we are commissioning an independent review of our three websites with the aim of ensuring we have a dynamic web presence which meets all users' needs and expectations. We hope this review will be completed in early autumn and that the implementation of its recommendations will commence immediately thereafter.

Mar gheall go bhfuil fócas obair na Roinne dírithe go mórmhór ar ghnóthaí an Rialtais agus ó Ranna agus gníomhaireachtaí eile, ní fhaigheann muid mórán éilimh ón bpobal maidir lenár gcuid seirbhísí i nGaeilge. Mar sin féin, tá sé mar aidhm ag an Roinn na seirbhísí a chuireann sí ar fáil a sholáthar trí Ghaeilge chomh maith le cultúr dearfach a fhorbairt a spreagann úsáid na Gaeilge taobh istigh den Roinn agus lenár gcustaiméirí féin.

Sa scéim atá ullmhaithe againn faoi Alt 11d'Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiúla agus a thagann i bhfeidhm ar 1 Meán Fómhair 2005, tá coimitmint againn seirbhís a sholáthar i nGaeilge ata d'aonchaighdeán le ceann an Bhéarla. I measc na mbearta a thógfaidh muid le linn fhaid na scéime chun ár seirbhísí a mhéadú agus chun sofheictheacht na Gaeilge a mhéadú, tá na cinn seo a leanas. Chomh maith leis na doiciméid atá ar fáil i mBéarla agus i nGaeilge faoi láthair, an ráiteas straitéise agus na tuarascálacha bliantúla, beidh doiciméid eile á cur ar fáil againn san dá theanga freisin. Cuirfear traenáil ar fáil sa Roinn do dhaoine ar mhaith leo feabhas a chur ar a gcuid Gaeilge. Maidir le láithreáin ghréasáin na Roinne, beidh an téacs agus na grafaicí ar fáil ar na príomhleathanaigh i mBéarla agus i nGaeilge. Cinnteoidh muid go gcuirfear amach 20% dárn-eisiúintí preas i nGaeilge agus i mBéarla taobh istigh de dheireadh na scéime. Cuirfidh muid turas ar fáil Dé Sathairn timpeall Thithe an Rialtais i nGaeilge.

Given that support to policymaking is the core business of the Department, it is imperative that our internal systems perform at a high level so that the quality and efficiency of our staff can be applied to best effect in the context of rapidly changing circumstances. One of our principal objectives is to provide a comprehensive and effective service to the Government. In this regard, the e-Cabinet system went live last year. All drafting, circulation for observations and submission to Cabinet of Government memoranda is now handled by the e-Cabinet system.

Substantial benefits are being realised as electronic document transmission facilitates the faster and more efficient conduct of business than was previously possible. In the space of the past year, more than 5,500 users, spanning all Departments and the Office of the Attorney General, used the system to author or submit memoranda for Government, entailing more than 15,500 transactions.

With the electronic transmission of documentation, printing, copying and manual delivery time lags are eliminated. Typically a weekly distribution of Cabinet papers would involve, on average, 400 to 500 documents which used to be copied and hand delivered. Since last December this is now all done electronically, thus lessening the need for resources associated with manual document delivery.

Users have access to information much sooner and can transmit it onward as required. Specifically, Ministers must no longer wait until Cabinet papers are delivered by hand to the Cabinet secretariat and then redistributed again by hand. They have the information as soon as it is submitted and can be briefed in a timelier manner before meetings.

Ministers and higher level users have real time access to the evolving agenda, therefore eliminating the time lags of the previous system. A memorandum arriving into the Cabinet secretariat late on Friday evening is instantly available whereas previously typically it would not have reached most recipients until the following Monday.

The system facilitates interoperability across all Departments for Cabinet documents. It makes it easier to conduct consultations and, as a result, the range of consultation has in many cases been extended, thus benefiting the decision and policymaking processes.

The key features facility made available from February means that Ministers and high level users not only get the information faster, it is also presented in a way which allows for quicker absorption of the crucial information on screen without the need to print. Additional functionality will be added to the system later in the year to support the seeking and preparation of briefing by Departments on each memorandum for their Minister. All Government decisions will be circulated on the system, again removing the current manual process. Arrangements will also be introduced to provide a briefing interface for Ministers and other high level users to access Cabinet information on portable devices.

Based on completion at the end of 2005, it is forecast that the project will cost just under €5 million, including VAT. This is substantially less than originally budgeted for, and includes enhancements not envisaged at the time of the original cost projections. Annual running costs of €195,000, excluding VAT, will be substantially less than the estimated savings arising over time in areas such as staffing, the cost of paper, etc.

The e-Cabinet initiative is just one element of a comprehensive information and communications technology strategy developed by the Department to meet our current and anticipated business needs. The development of this strategy has allowed the Department to define its core technologies and realign resources to better meet business needs.

The objective of the management information framework, MIF, is to provide Departments with a flexible system of financial management, integrated with performance and output measurement to enhance efficiency, performance and accountability. As well as providing the standard functions of a modem financial system, MIF envisages internal and, in time, external reports covering both the financial and non-financial aspects of performance.

The Department of the Taoiseach was one of the first three Departments to introduce this new financial management system in July 2002. The new system provides integrated functionality for cash and accrual accounting, budgeting, management reporting and costing. Its implementation has resulted in benefits arising from streamlined electronic processes, such as electronic funds transfer, EFT, which is now used for all staff payments and is available as a payment option for all suppliers. The new system has also resulted in improved financial control systems.

MIF can incorporate non-financial data for each accounting period and each budget holder's area of responsibility so that expenditure can be related not only to inputs but also to outputs and outcomes. This performance information will be available for inclusion on management reports to cater for performance reporting against stated objectives.

Following work by our internal performance indicators group, including the development of a framework for reporting on performance and its piloting across a number of divisions, indicators have now been incorporated into the Department's business planning processes and we have included the higher level element of them in our new strategy statement. Risk management is an ongoing process through which risks are identified, their potential impact assessed and the most effective way of responding to them determined. Risk management has also been incorporated into the business planning processes thus strengthening our internal control environment.

A business planning review process has also been introduced, whereby each head of division reports bi-annually to the management advisory committee, MAC, of the Department. The first review focuses on the key outputs of the division for the year ahead while the second review, held towards the end of the year, focuses on the progress made during the year. Heads of divisions are expected to include performance indicators and their risk management analyses in their reports.

High level monthly financial reports to MAC have been available electronically since January 2003 and are a standard MAC agenda item each month. More detailed expenditure reports are circulated each month to heads of divisions to facilitate budget monitoring and other processes in line with delegated financial responsibility.

It can be seen, therefore, that a system of MAC reports, incorporating financial and non-financial information, has been developed and refined over the past two years and work is ongoing to enhance this system further. This will ensure the achievement of high quality outputs while maintaining value for money.

The capability and commitment of our staff is central to ensuring that the Department delivers on its mission and provides the requisite quality of services. It is essential, therefore, that we continue to attract and retain high calibre individuals and to manage and develop them from induction onwards. To achieve this aim, the Department has developed a comprehensive human resources strategy which is informed by employee opinion surveys and good practice across the Civil Service generally. The strategy includes a range of actions designed to attract and retain high quality staff, develop their skills and ensure that they are satisfied and motivated in their work and have appropriate opportunities for personal and career development.

Some of the actions that have been progressed so far include the implementation of a new computerised personnel administration system, a staff mobility policy which allows staff the opportunity to develop a wide range of skills and competencies, and active implementation of the performance management and development system, PMDS, which is central to achieving the goal of a modern, dynamic, high performance Civil Service. We are finalising plans to integrate PMDS into wider human resource policies and processes within the Department. We are also in the process of finalising agreement with the unions within the Department on the introduction of a 100% competitive promotions framework within a defined timescale.

I hope that the joint committee will see that considerable effort is being put into creating the conditions that will allow us as a Department to implement fully the strategies outlined in the new strategy statement and achieve our overriding aim of providing a quality service to the Taoiseach and the Government while maximising value for money.

I thank the Secretary General for the presentation. This document does not deserve the name of a strategy because it does not make any choices, rank priorities, set timelines or make anybody responsible for the delivery of any tangible outcome. I wonder where the strategic management initiative is going when, ten years into the process, the Secretary General announces as if it were news that we need to develop key performance indicators and outcomes for the resources we deploy. That objective was set ten years ago and it was key at that time.

The Department, according to its statement, is at the core of co-ordinating strategy and formulating policy for public service modernisation and developing a longer-term planning perspective and a closely co-ordinated approach across the Government system. Ten years on it is now thinking of delivering some of the things that were key to the effective use of resources at the beginning of the process.

Even more disconcerting, the Department has not set any timeline by which we will see these performance indicators. It has responsibility for the 15 Departments and we know they have resisted their development. What penalties does the Department intend to impose on other Departments for their continued obduracy in failing to meet this key element of strategic management?

It is not acceptable that we come here year after year and see strategy statement after strategy statement, running to 100 pages in this case but not mentioning the people who use public services. There is no tangible delivery of them and the Department is not demanding of any of the Departments the necessary responsibility and focus on priorities. It is hardly surprising that, despite spending on public services doubling in the past eight years, there is public frustration that it is not delivering anything because the focus has not been put on the outcomes that these Departments need to achieve. Ten years later, members are discussing the same issues faced by Albert Reynolds when as Taoiseach — many people probably do not even remember Albert Reynolds as Taoiseach — he initiated this process.

If one takes the National Anti-Poverty Strategy as an example, the Department of the Taoiseach is at its core. Its indicator of success is effective involvement in the NAPS implementation mechanisms. Hence, the Department's test of performance is not its effectiveness in reducing illiteracy, school dropout rates or the number of children going without basic necessities. Instead, the Department's test is its internal participation in some sort of committee structure. This will not butter the parsnips for people who look to Mr. McCarthy's Department to be the agent to deliver change to people on the ground.

The Department appears to be responsible for modern workplace partnerships. I am surprised it is not the responsibility of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. In any event, according to this statement, the Department of the Taoiseach's target is to implement the recommendations of the report of the forum on the workplace of the future. However, not a single timeline is included. The committee members do not know whether one or all 100 recommendations will be implemented over three years. Have they all been accepted or will only some be implemented? If the strategy statement was designed to drive performance, the committee members would have that list of recommendations and would be able to tell the Secretary General that he has failed to deliver X. In three years, when the period covered by the statement is over, the committee will not be in a position to judge whether any of these recommendations was achieved. It will be easy for the Department to claim that recommendations of the report were implemented.

A document like this should include the adoption of certain major high level priorities and the deployment of resources to secure them. It should contain datelines under which each priority will be met and in so far as possible, a tangible outcome should be linked to a dateline. If that was the case, committee members would begin to agree that serious change was underway and the Department meant business.

However, this looks like benchmarking all over again. It is a massive list of activities for which someone will tick boxes to show that this, that and the other are being done. However, the end of the process will not see substantive change.

I do not envisage that this SMI process, which generates wheelbarrows full of documentation, will deliver. I have tried to grasp what the Department is trying to do, but I do not envisage that it will deliver. This document does not contain enough concrete statements in which the Department undertakes to follow a particular course of action and to take responsibility if it fails. I do not see such statements in this document. It is simply pap and rhetoric to which no one can object because it says nothing that is either confirmable or deniable in many cases. I am frustrated with this process.

On a wider level, I note that one of the Department's objectives is the ongoing effective communication with the social partners. One issue which arose during a meeting of this committee last week concerned the decision, which originated in the witnesses' own Department, to continue a process whereby the Oireachtas has no say in social partnership, other than through its token 15 members of the NESF. Why is the Oireachtas not involved in shaping the strategic framework which will form the basis of negotiation for social partnership? Why has it been decided that the elected representatives of civil society would be excluded from this process and that it would become a process which was essentially for the representatives of different interest groups to work out their own arrangements between themselves? Surely, the Oireachtas has a role. The Oireachtas never approved the last agreement, Sustaining Progress, which never came before it, either at its inception phase or after the negotiations were over. At no stage did the Oireachtas have any hand, act or part in that process. Social partnership is an important process and has been credited with contributing enormously to our success, and rightly so. However, why was it decided that the Oireachtas must be excluded from it?

In the same vein, some people on the last occasion voted against the partnership deal. Why did Mr. McCarthy's Department then decide to freeze them out? People who decided they could not support the partnership deal were immediately taken off all the committees. If the aim is ongoing and effective communication with the social partners, why does the Department confine it only to those who agree with it and exclude those who have a problem?

With regard to the Cabinet process, the e-Cabinet documentation looks very impressive. I cannot understand why the issue of decentralisation, a major change in governance, did not go through the process of consultation, whereby Departments and agencies could have commented on the business case made for the moves proposed. Was this a political decision which side-stepped standard Cabinet procedure or was it decided that the issue of decentralisation should not have to go through standard Cabinet procedure? What was the background to the decision? The outcome of the way in which the decentralisation process was handled has been many problems in its implementation.

It is remarkable that while people talk about decentralisation in the documentation, ranging from 2005 to 2007, there are no concrete indicators as to what is expected to be achieved. One would expect a document of this nature to set out expectations of achievement. The original decentralisation plan was to record achievement in three years, whereas achievement dates do not now appear to figure at all for the programme. Much more needs to be done to make the processes meaningful in order that we can feel real progress is being made as a result of the undoubtedly time-consuming document put together by the Department.

Let me first clarify the nature of the document before the joint committee. It is a strategy statement for the Department of the Taoiseach, not the Government.

As I have previously indicated, we are in a unique situation because we have, as a mandate, the responsibility to support the policy co-ordination process without having direct responsibility for the achievement of outcomes. For example, we are heavily involved in NAPS, cited by Deputy Bruton, in seeking to promote implementation of the Government's strategy which has concrete targets and specific timelines. However, primary responsibility for the achievement of specific goals rests with the Minister for Social and Family Affairs and the office with responsibility for social inclusion. Nonetheless, we provide central support for the strategy. It would be improper for this statutory document, therefore, to provide for an activity that is the responsibility of another Minister in another Department.

Mr. McCarthy has indicated his Department has a central role in developing a longer-term planning perspective and a closely co-ordinated approach across the Government system. This is a key objective. Mr. McCarthy has also indicated his Department formulates and co-ordinates policy on public service modernisation. This should surely go so far as insisting, at a minimum, that performance indicators are produced by Departments. While it may not be possible to deliver every element in respect of performance within Departments, the Department of the Taoiseach has not even got other Departments to produce performance indicators. Mr. McCarthy's Department is at the heart of the matter and he cannot sidestep his responsibilities. He is claiming these as key objectives.

I am happy to deal with the Deputy's points. He made a point about the absence of specific indicators with regard to NAPS. The reason for their absence is that they are the responsibility of another Department. The responsibility of the Department of the Taoiseach is to contribute to the smooth functioning of the entire Government system, including the Cabinet process. We have set out reasonably clearly the manner in which we seek to do this and the relevant performance indicators. In this way the indicators are not dissimilar to those published by the offices of Prime Ministers in other jurisdictions. I will be happy to supply the Deputy with examples which are not dissimilar. There is a difficulty in applying performance indicators which are satisfactorily concrete to an activity which is process orientated in terms of the support of the machinery of government and which is necessarily supportive of the activities of others who have responsibility. However, in those areas where we have direct accountability the statement reflects this, in line with the Public Service Management Act.

As regards the specifics of performance indicators across the system of strategy statements, the Deputy will see in those which have been published recently and those which are due to be published and have been considered by the Government in recent weeks that there is a significant advance in the degree of specificity in existing performance indicators. These indicators have been developed in a rigorous fashion, as the joint committee will be aware from previous discussions. However, there are problems with the satisfactory measurement of outcomes and impact but that is not a difficulty confined to this jurisdiction. Work has been ongoing in recent years and there has been progressive improvement in both the quality and reliability of the measures available which increasingly feature in strategy statements.

It is not for the Department of the Taoiseach or me to penalise other Departments for not supplying performance indicators. However, it is my responsibility to ensure systems are developed to enable this to happen and that political choices are reflected in appropriate accountability measures. That is happening. The management information framework to which I referred is the basic platform on which it is being done. The Department of the Taoiseach is perhaps the worst placed to provide a satisfying degree of rigorous precision on the indicators of success, given the nature of our responsibilities. However, there is more to be seen and judged across the system as a whole and within the SMI framework. This transparency is reflected not only in the strategy statements but also in the annual reports published by Departments. As the joint committee is aware, the Minister for Finance intends to link into the budgetary process and arrangements currently being prepared.

I asked other questions which Mr. McCarthy did not answer.

I will be happy to come back to them.

I would like to bring in other members. We will come back to those questions.

I welcome the Secretary General and officials from the Department of the Taoiseach. I thank the Department for the outstanding contribution it has made to national progress in the past 20 years in such matters as the peace process, sustaining social partnership without interruption since 1987 and the leadership given, for example, during the EU Presidency on EU matters. The International Financial Services Centre was an initiative originally directed from the Department and subsequently passed to the Department of Finance.

While I share to a certain degree Deputy Bruton's scepticism about the SMI, every organisation produces mission statements, reports and strategies of the type we are considering. I sometimes wonder if too much energy is invested in that regard. I accept, however, that it relates to transparency and accountability, particularly as members of the public are concerned because, if they are interested, they can examine what Departments or agencies do.

Achieving outcomes, however, is perhaps even more important than measuring them. My scepticism regarding SMI extends, to a degree, to performance indicators. As the Secretary General hinted, our neighbours across the water — the British Labour Government — have become totally obsessed with performance indicators. Much of this is a very artificial political exercise. If one can believe that 95% of trains run on time and that 89% of letters arrive the day after they are posted, that is all well and good. However, one must remember that performance indicators require the establishment of an entire bureaucracy to deal with them. I prefer the accent to be on achievement rather than constantly measuring what people are doing.

For some time, we have all been concerned as to how better value for money can be achieved from Government expenditure. There are many instances where, for one reason or another, money has been wasted or control of expenditure has not been as rigorous as it could have been. While everyone ought to do so, some people in the public sector do not pay as much attention to financial discipline as others. What does the Secretary General believe can be done to improve the effectiveness of State expenditure and thus obtain a bigger bang for our buck?

My second question relates to something for which the social partnership does not cater. A new initiative that is being dealt with by the Taoiseach's office concerns dialogue with the churches and the different faith communities. The Secretary General may wish to comment on this initiative which, I think, is important and valuable. Will he indicate the progress that is being made on those lines?

A number of steps have been taken on value for money and enhanced effectiveness, which undoubtedly could be developed further in terms of giving confidence in that area. There is a significant benefit in a culture of evaluation where both the ex ante and ex post assessments of what it to be achieved under programmes of expenditure, be they capital or current, have been significantly established across the public system. That could, without doubt, be strengthened and it should, in turn, be accompanied by the development of a skill base in areas such as project management. This would ensure that awareness is translated into practice. Contestability in the form of procurement and tendering practice is another dimension where there have been significant improvements, particularly in the context of the application of new technologies.

The innovation of multi-annual capital envelopes has enhanced the potential to plan on a systematic basis and achieve value for money, not least by giving clear signals to the private sector about the flow of activity over a period. This, in turn, enables them to gear up on a cost-effective basis to meet the likely needs of the public system. Innovation in work processes and practices, including the deployment of new technologies, is perhaps in the long run the most important way of enhancing productivity in the public service and of delivering better value. We have seen examples of that in a wide variety of areas. Even those areas which have attracted some criticism, not least from a sister committee of this one, have nonetheless been acknowledged to have shown improvement in recent years. The awareness of the need to maintain that improvement is well established.

On the second point the Senator raised about dialogue with the churches and faith communities, this was an initiative the Government took primarily in the context of the draft EU constitution in which provision was made in Article 52 for such a dialogue to occur at European level. The Government considered that there was merit in this being applied at domestic level also, not least in the context of a more diverse population and a wider range of faith communities than perhaps was our traditional experience.

The various churches and faith communities were consulted about the principle of such an initiative some months ago and the reaction was overwhelmingly positive. The Government approved a broad framework for this dialogue to commence in the past month or so. The churches and faith communities are now being invited to confirm their interest in participating in a system which will have a combination of bilateral contact on matters of mutual interest, without displacing existing consultation mechanisms where they are already well established and some element of corporate or plenary-type engagement. In light of our particular history and the emerging issues of inter-faith and intercultural relations on a wide basis, the Government believes this is a timely development.

I agree that the majority of people are interested in the outcome, not the process. It is the responsibility of Departments to get the process right in order that the outcome will be correct. Is the statutory requirement to produce a document or report of that nature from time to time not flawed in some respects in that those being asked to do so are measuring something which really requires a political, rather than a public service, decision? In fact, it is political measurement.

I also see wheelbarrows full of these reports. I am only a new Member of the Dáil but I have stopped expecting the one report which will deliver that which it says it will deliver. They have almost become a form in themselves and I have been party to compiling a couple of them. A considerable amount of work goes into these reports and we must have a way of measuring. However, we have almost made an industry out of them across the public sector. Does this process need to be simplified or reviewed?

I recall advice given by someone advising us on the compilation of a particular report. We were told that the best advice he could give was that we should be deliberately vague because we would be hanged if we did not deliver. That deliberate vagueness is part of the problem because when one produces a strategic report, one raises an expectation that it will be delivered. Reports are read by people who do not understand that the type of vagueness to which I refer is part of compiling such reports. That produces a negative reaction to measuring progress.

Another issue is ICT, which, if properly used and integrated, is a useful tool in modernising the public service. Soon after I was elected, in my innocence I asked a parliamentary question seeking information as to whether the local government system would introduce an e-procurement mechanism such as that which exists in the UK. The latter results in a 10% to 12% reduction in local government spend, thereby leaving more money to spend on other initiatives. I put my question to the Department of the Taoiseach because I thought a superstructure existed but I was informed that I must inquire with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government about the matter. Basically, my question concerned where e-procurement would fit into the overall strategic approach. I am not convinced — I was not present for the previous briefing — that a superstructure exists because it seems that we have a fragmented approach. We have much to gain by having a more defined strategic approach to the development of ICT across the public sector.

My final comment relates to a paragraph on the second last page of the presentation concerning employee opinion surveys, good practice across the public service and efforts to ensure satisfaction with skills and that people are motivated. Has decentralisation featured as a question in those surveys? It is an issue by which motivation can be measured. Has the uncertainty introduced into the public sector by decentralisation had an impact on staff motivation or does this show in the results of the surveys?

In terms of the net benefit of the documents produced, statutory statements are required to be produced at least every three years. They are produced by Departments within the framework of the policies set down by Government and each Department's Minister. The Minister must approve the text, following consultation with the Taoiseach, and the statements are then submitted to the Government for collective approval before publication. While the effort is largely at administrative level in terms of drafting, the political framework is clear both as to the objectives to be pursued and the way in which they are to be pursued.

The statement of strategy is produced primarily as an instrument of transparency so that the combination of it and the annual reports on progress made can inform the process of accountability. Today's discussion is a particularly valuable example of how, hopefully, the statement of strategy can be a useful ingredient in the overall discourse on accountability. The question of whether the statements could be simplified and made less extensive, at least in terms of the number of pages, is reasonable. This is something we considered in the context of the current round of strategy statements. Some that have been published are significantly more concise than those that have gone before. I accept the point made. Strategy statements that are excessively vague and, where there is a lack of concrete commitment and as we witnessed a short time ago, they can be a subject of debate.

In terms of ICT and whether there is an overall strategy, with someone having a sense of where it is all going and the overall benefits involved, there is a dilemma. We have moved from tight, centralised control, which was, in light of the pace of technological chance, seen to be inflexible and perhaps inappropriate, to the other end of the spectrum, where everyone was left to devise their own approach and strategies. It has reached the point where we are now somewhere in the middle and where common frameworks exist to ensure that machines talk to each other and systems are compatible. Issues such as the Cabinet project can be implemented in all Departments, regardless of where they are physically located.

It has also been reflected in the philosophy of the e-broker, a front of house-type system which has gone live in recent weeks and which will progressively be the front of house for Departments and offices and local authorities generally. It is no longer possible to conceive of a single ICT office to control and answer for everything that happens in the public system. However, we can expect common standards and a degree of synergy such that people may continue to develop their own strategies but within a framework which actually makes sense, in so far as the wider system is concerned, and which delivers practical benefits. I refer here, for example, to the Revenue on-line service or the on-line motor tax facility, which deliver practical benefits and people do not have to worry too much about what is happening in the back office because the front office makes sense and delivers a service.

On decentralisation and employee opinion surveys, the specific question of decentralisation did not feature in our survey, perhaps because the Department will not be decentralising directly. It appears that 20% of our staff have indicated their intention to move to decentralised locations. One would have expected that if that sort of uncertainty was in people's minds and leading to a problem of motivation, it would have been reflected in the responses. However, that does not appear to have been the case. It is something that could be tracked as we repeat these surveys over time.

Does Deputy Bruton wish to make any final comments?

I posed a few queries on social partnership and decentralisation which were passed over.

On social partnership, I wish to clarify it was not the case that groups which rejected the Sustaining Progress agreement were excluded. The view is they excluded themselves in the sense that the framework of social partnership is designed and operates around an agreement. For the time being there is no separate structure of social partnership beyond the agreements; it is not an institution in that sense. I am happy to say that those organisations which were in the community and voluntary pillar and which chose not to approve Sustaining Progress have indicated that they wish to participate in the next phase of social partnership. I am confident they will have an important contribution to make.

With a deftness I admire, the Deputy linked decentralisation to e-Cabinet. The issue he raised was not really about the technology supporting the decision but about the nature of the decision itself. In my view, this goes a little beyond the statement of strategy 2007.

If I heard him correctly, the Secretary General said that 20% of the staff of the Taoiseach's office had indicated an interest in decentralising. This is an astonishingly positive figure and a great vote of confidence in the process.

We will now conclude the discussion on the strategy statement. I thank Mr. McCarthy and his colleagues for their contributions. We appreciate their attendance so late in the summer.

Sitting suspended at 4.20 p.m. and resumed at 4.21 p.m.
Barr
Roinn