Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)

I thank the Minister for his lengthy reply, which I can only describe as a fig leaf to cover his embarrassment. Surely the Minister accepts that the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General shows a shambolic record on e-Government. In the Comptroller and Auditor General's report there are repeated criticisms of the failure of two action plans launched by the Government. I can remember the rhetoric, fanfare and commitments to strategic management and moving into the 21st century. All kinds of clichés are used when these plans were being launched by the Taoiseach and his Department but at the end of the day surely the Minister of State will accept the hard facts show a very different picture.

It is almost a scatter-brained approach that has been exposed in this report on e-Government. Clearly, what we have are projects that were delayed, that overran or that never happened. Of the total number, one in three projects was only partly implemented within the period and one in six was abandoned altogether. Is that a matter of concern to the Minister of State? The general approach adopted clearly shows there is poor planning, unrealistic expectation, interdepartmental friction and weak central oversight.

Since the Minister of State seems to be perpetuating the difficulty in getting this sorted out when he states that one should refer to each Department for particular projects, the first question I want him to answer is who is in charge and who will provide the central oversight clearly lacking in this endeavour? Is the Minister of State concerned — as far as I recall he did not mention this in his reply — that progress is slowing rather than speeding up, to which the Comptroller and Auditor General referred and which is a matter of great concern?

I quote particulars to which the Comptroller and Auditor General referred because we need to get a response from the Minister of State. In his report, the Comptroller and Auditor General stated:

All projects should have clear, measurable business objectives, and time and cost targets. A much stronger project cost and performance measurement and reporting system is required, integrated with departmental and agency reporting systems.

Over €420 million was spent over the number of years scrutinised in the report, 20% above budget. On average, the projects were 25% delayed in terms of time lines. Surely, that must alert us to great concerns about poor management.

Neither did the Minister of State state his response to the following request by the Comptroller and Auditor General:

Measurable targets should be set for each of the strategic goals of e-Government, and responsibility for the achievement of the goals should be formally assigned. Annuale-Government progress reports should be published, focusing on the achievement both of strategic goals and of planned project impacts. The effectiveness of the e-Government strategy should be formally and independently evaluated from time to time.

Will the Minister of State do that? These are basic, good management practices with which clearly this Government does not seem to be familiar but now that we have an independent report on which to work, and which is extremely helpful in terms of trying to put the mess right, I wonder whether the Government is listening.

As the Minister of State was clear on the question on the Information Society Commission that he felt this was an important commission which provided much valuable information and direction in terms of policy, why has it not been replaced? It has disappeared since 2005. Why is the Minister of State not replacing it? No doubt he needs help. A commission was in place and was able to give expert advice, and yet this too was jettisoned along with many other projects within the e-Government strategy that never saw the light of day.

Perhaps the Minister of State would be more specific on the information society plan. He did not specify in his reply when exactly that will be published.

I have two other questions, one of which relates to the REACH programme and the public service broker. I do not want the Minister of State to give me the same answer as the Minister for Finance when I asked him this question. A decision came from nowhere about a project that was central to the e-Government strategy, for which someone in the Department of the Taoiseach has overall responsibility. This particular service was to assist the public and was to cost €14 million. It ended up costing €37 million and it costs €15 million per annum to run. On 1 April — an appropriate day — it was announced that the service would be transferred from the Department of Social and Family Affairs to the Department of Finance, presumably to be buried.

Can the Minister of State please clarify exactly what is going on? How many people are involved in developing this particular project? What has happened to the private consultants who are contracted to deal with this project that was supposed to help the public? I would be grateful if he did not refer me to the individual Department. When Government policy on a project is switched or nosedives, the very least the Minister of State can do is to tell the public what is going on. As he pointed out, this is providing better services for the public, but the public is paying a very heavy price due to Government incompetence and rising costs. The REACH programme of the public service broker is a very fine example of how costs have got out of control. We are not getting any answers when we try to raise these issues.

Will the Minister of State please accept that there is disenchantment out there? The public wants on-line services, but we have been lumbered with useless e-voting machines and there was a gargantuan loss of money in the health services following the PPARS fiasco. Now the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General clearly states there are problems in the e-Government strategy that are extremely serious and need to be addressed. Comprehensive and all as it is, does the Minister of State accept that his answer will not deal with the issues?

See this speech in context