Vol. 503 No. 6
4 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach further to Parliamentary Question No. 1 of 16 December 1998 on the strategic management initiative, the detailed proposals, if any, he has brought forward for decision relating to regulatory reform, financial management and information technology; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9579/99]
5 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if, further to Parliamentary Question No. 1 of 8 December 1998, the SMI implementation group has reported to him on appropriate action on cross-departmental issues involving the use of section 12 of the Public Service Management Act, 1997; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9580/99]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 and 5 together.
As the Deputy is aware, the strategic management initiative sets out a wide ranging programme for change in the Civil Service. It is based on a number of key elements including regulatory reform, financial management changes and changes in information technology. Working groups were established in respect of those issues and those groups have now reported. Their recommendations have been considered by the implementation group which is responsible for developing an integrated programme of change.
The report of the working group on regulatory reform has now been considered by the implementation group, which has set out a programme of action to help ensure that the level of regulation in the economy is appropriate. A draft memorandum for Government setting out the detailed proposals in this area has been prepared and circulated to Government Departments. Their observations have now been received and I am currently finalising detailed proposals which I expect to be able to put to my colleagues in Government for decision in the near future.
Changes to our financial management systems are an important part of the overall SMI process. The recommendations of the financial management working group were considered by the implementation group at its meeting in March. The implementation group is preparing a report for Government, setting out a programme of action to put in place improved financial management systems. I envisage Government consideration shortly. As I indicated in my reply to questions on 16 December last, changes have already been introduced in the multi-annual budgeting and administrative budget aspects of financial management.
A number of the recommendations in the SMI working group report on information technology have already been taken up in the work of the interdepartmental implementation group on the information society. The action plan on implementing the information society has now been adopted and implementation of that plan will result in progress being made on a number of the issues identified in the SMI working group report, principally in relation to quality service delivery.
In addition, the IT working group report contains a number of recommendations on the acquisition and retention of skilled IT staff. In December 1998 the Department of Finance reached agreement with the unions on a set of once-off exceptional measures to retain skilled IT staff engaged in Year 2000 work until that work is completed. This includes scope for reassignment of suitable administrative staff to IT work and, where it is deemed appropriate, payment of a loyalty bonus in April 2000 to skilled IT staff.
The remaining recommendations will be considered by the implementation group in May. They relate primarily to management and financial issues and need to be integrated with the other programmes of action under SMI. I expect that the report of the implementation group will be submitted to Government shortly thereafter.
With regard to Deputy Bruton's question about cross-departmental issues involving the use of section 12 of the Public Service Management Act, 1997, orders have not so far been made under this section. As the Deputy will be aware from my reply to a similar question on 8 December last, the purpose of section 12 of the Act is to provide, as necessary, for the assignment by Ministers or Ministers of State of responsibility to civil servants for cross-departmental issues and the associated accountability arrangements. The Act also requires, under section 4, that the heads of Departments and offices ensure that appropriate arrangements are put in place to facilitate an effective response to these issues. Ministers are aware of these provisions to which I have previously drawn their attention.
Issues of policy cross departmental boundaries and there is a need to identify new ways of managing such issues more effectively in the future. Already some experiments in cross-departmental boundaries have been undertaken, including the drugs strategy team and the cross-departmental team on SMI. The departmental strategy statements approved by Ministers last year and laid before the House set out the foundations for future work in this area. The SMI implementation group is considering appropriate approaches to cross-departmental issues in the light of the experiences being gained. I expect that such consideration will address the use of section 12 of the 1997 Act as a means of underpinning progress on these matters.
Does the Taoiseach agree that it is disappointing, despite the work done passing the Act, that two years after its passing, the public service has not made use of the legislative powers given to it in section 12 to provide for a structure of co-operation between Departments? Does he regard this as a failure on the part of the public administration to use means given to it by this House to address a genuine problem of cross-departmental functioning? It is well known to anyone who has served in Government that getting Departments to co-operate is one of the greatest difficulties of government.
This is a very important area. The Act giving the legal basis for the assignment did not come into effect until September 1997. Since then the SMI, in conjunction with Departments, have been identifying areas for co-operation and some pilot work has been done, for example the establishment of the drugs strategy team. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has also done some work on drafting legislation to establish a regulatory framework for the private security industry. Other Departments have done similar work. In its report of 1998, the implementation group identified the areas for cross-departmental co-operation. It is important that this should be done. The officials and committees involved are working their way through the process. The sooner it is done the better.
Is the public service not ignoring the Oireachtas? The Oireachtas passed legislation to give Departments the legal power to co-operate with each other but departmental empires are still being presrved and public servants are refusing to use the legislation. Does the Taoiseach agree that he should intervene in this matter? He should convene a meeting of Secretaries General and ask them, one by one, why they have not used section 12 to deal with known areas of lack of co-ordination between Departments. The Taoiseach could list those areas without difficulty, as could anyone who has served in Government.
The public service is not ignoring the Oireachtas. The officials involved in SMI have put a great effort into the process, in addition to their other work. It would be unfair to say otherwise. Some experimentation has already been done. Cross-departmental teams have been set up in a number of areas and these has been successful. Last year, the implementation group asked Departments to identify areas where they could use cross-departmental strategies and ways to do so. The group has worked on the development of strategic results areas and has put a framework for that in place. The implementation group is anxious that the Departments operate the system and it is now necessary that they do so but they have already done a great deal of work. Establishing a legal base was one step in the process. Areas where the process could be implemented had to be identified, pilot schemes initiated and a framework for the process constructed. These things have been done.
Section 4 of the Act places the responsibility on Secretaries General to ensure that appropriate arrangements are in place to facilitate an effective response to cross-departmental issues. Deputy Bruton is right in saying that. Areas for co-operation within Departments and across Departments have been identified. The Act must now be implemented. Much work had to be done.
Does the Taoiseach agree that it is a characteristic response of a Secretary Gen eral to say that action is impossible because delays in the parliamentary draftsman's office are holding up legislation? In this case, legislation was passed two years ago, giving Departments the power to do something which will achieve what everyone knows is necessary – structured co-operation between Departments. Two years after this House and the parliamentary draftsmen worked extremely hard to have legislation enacted, it has not been used once. Does the Taoiseach regard that as a clear failure on the part of the public administration to use powers given by the Oireachtas for a real purpose?
In the 18 months since the Act was introduced the framework has been put in place by the implementation group. The Oireachtas was not in a position to do this. The arrangements have worked well in the pilot areas. There is a legal requirement to use the powers and I expect them to be used more to deal with what is a big issue. It is a new departure across the Civil Service. It was done on an ad hoc basis but it did not work well. With political and Civil Service leadership, the various organisations will work together to change financial accountability arrangements. This has taken some time to organise. Let us see how it works.
The Taoiseach referred to the report of the working group on regulatory reform. Will the report and its recommendations require changes in legislation to provide conditions for making and applying regulations? In practice, what does regulatory reform mean?
The purpose is to reduce red tape in the system—
It is a slogan.
—and get rid of many of the unnecessary regulations and procedures. Although I cannot be certain, this does not require legislation. Across all Departments and agencies an enormous amount of unnecessary functions have been identified.
How can regulations be removed other than by regulation? Is it not the case that, if red tape is to be removed, significant regulations will have to be passed to repeal existing regulations? Regulations cannot be removed by the use of a magic wand.
We bring forward the most complex of legislation which we all demanded endlessly and then implement about 10 per cent of it.
That is the point I was making.
It happens in the case of every Bill.
That is a terrible admission for a Taoiseach to make.
It has happened under every Taoiseach since the foundation of the State.
What is the Taoiseach doing about it?
If we were to follow up every Act, we would need 10,000 times more staff.
We should not produce legislation, then.
We should not cod each other – at least some of the time – it has never stopped.
The Taoiseach is like Pontius Pilate washing his hands. He is not in charge, just observing.
Pandering.
Before it goes abroad that we only implement 10 per cent of legislation does the Taoiseach agree that the figure of 10 per cent is an underestimate?
Fifteen per cent. We blind ourselves about how it should work but we do not think about it how works in practice.
It is fine in practice; will it work in theory?
Perhaps the regulations should be amended but in the case of the SMI there is no need to change all the legislation to introduce regulatory reform. Consolidating legislation is rarely introduced.
Does the Taoiseach agree that his admission that we implement, at best, 15 per cent of legislation is one of the most helpless by a person holding his office since the State was founded? Surely, he can do better.
Deputy Bruton always asks a question and then tries to mislead. We are talking about regulatory reform and the implementation of legislation in which matters are spelled out in huge detail. We are talking about the fine detail, not the principle. In most cases, when one looks back, all the fine detail is not required in practice. That is what has happened and will always happen, and the Deputy knows that.
