Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)

I very much welcome this motion. I commend the Fine Gael Party, particularly Deputy Coveney, on the comprehensive nature of the approach to the issue of e-Government. I confess it is not an area in which I would describe myself as technically competent but I am more than aware of the benefits that can be derived from its implementation. I also welcome the constructive response from the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Tom Kitt. I wish him and his colleague on the other side of the House success in arriving at some type of consensus. This House is often at its best when there is co-operation. There are many issues upon which we disagree but there are many others upon which there is a shared view. If we can secure consensus on these issues, it sends an important signal to society. One signal I would like to mention, in the absence of the Minister of State, Deputy Wallace, is to stop referring to citizens as customers and to Departments as businesses. They are not businesses, they are unique and are not in competition. Citizens do not have a choice of supplier of public services and they should be treated as citizens with rights and given respect.

Departments should not be treated as businesses because they are not businesses. They are public service institutions which represent a distinct separate sector of our society. They complement businesses and facilitate their activities. Citizens complement the function of the marketplace but we do not have a market for agricultural services in the sense the Minister for State, Deputy Wallace, spoke about. One does not have the choice to go down the high street to go to another alternative business where one is treated as a customer. Let us not abuse ourselves about this point.

The only way to judge the Government's attitude towards the electronic provision of services is the end result. The delivery of services to the public by electronic means can be cheaper, easier and, most importantly, more accessible to those who need them most. However, it can be much more than that. As a special report on this subject in The Economist on 12 February put it, e-Government means that "government not only puts its services on-line, but in doing so changes the way it works". This is the critical point we want to make. A cultural transformation is associated with the transfer from paper to electronic transactions. Public services must be delivered for the public's benefit. We should not lose sight of this fundamental rule. This means no more references to customers and businesses.

With more and more people working long hours and living far from their workplaces they simply do not have time to visit distant Government offices. Often these offices are open at hours most inconvenient for anyone who has a job. How many Departments or agencies have offices open on Saturdays? How many open during lunchtime? How many have telephones that will be answered after 5 p.m. on a weekday or even during a weekday? One rings the buildings unit of the Department of Education and Science in Tullamore but no one has an answering service at his or her telephone number.

I can go on-line at any time of the day or night and manage my bank account, buy car insurance, buy just about any book or piece of music ever published, reserve a hotel room or a holiday in any country in the world, buy a plane ticket, reserve my seat and even check in for the flight before I arrive at the airport, but I cannot buy a new TV licence on-line, I can only renew an existing one. I cannot apply on-line for a passport, a driver's licence or planning permission, or tender for Government business. I cannot apply for or use the majority of national or local government services on-line.

The Government seems to think that e-Government means making a form available on the Internet so citizens can save it the printing costs. In some cases, even this is not allowed. Why can one not obtain a passport application form on-line, even for a simple renewal? Thousands of hours each week are wasted by public servants transcribing information into computers that public service users would be only too happy to enter into their own computers given half a chance.

This is "Web 1.0" as some would put it. The rest of the on-line society has moved on to "Web 2.0" and the Government must move quickly if it is not to be left behind again. There are excellent examples of how public demand has created on-line public services where the Government has failed. I know of at least two websites showing extensive maps of bus routes in Dublin, neither of which is owned by Dublin Bus. Another website even shows the live position of the DART on a map of Dublin but it has nothing to do with Iarnród Éireann.

Notably good examples of excellent e-Government are in place although, unfortunately, they are few. Three worthy of particular mention are the Citizens Information Board, motor tax on-line and the Revenue Commissioners. We changed car within the past ten days and received our motor taxation certificate effortlessly and within hours rather than days. I compliment the people directly involved. If we can do that in this sector, why can we not do it in other sectors also? The three bodies I mentioned have something in common in that they provide the required information and services in a clear and simple manner. However, I am sad to state that overall the e-Government strategy has been a failure. Projects run over budget and over time as a matter of routine.

Many Government services could be provided easily and cheaply with ongoing cost savings by putting them on-line. Administration costs are reduced because properly validated data is put directly into the system. Processing time is greatly speeded up because there is no need to wait for postal deliveries or for forms to be transcribed. While e-Government is primarily about delivering a better service to the public, it can also increase efficiency.

A significant part of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report deals with failures in how e-Government projects to date have been run. At this point, there is no need to revisit them all, save to say that less than half were fully operational six months after their original deadline. Simple project management could increase this figure to what it should be. A lack of project management was what put paid to PPARS.

I state sincerely and in the constructive spirit of this dialogue that someone must be in charge. One individual must take overall responsibility for the project and then delegate onwards specific elements of responsibility as appropriate. If the Ministers are not seen to take responsibility they should not expect the public service and the Civil Service to step into the breach. We must have a culture of acceptance of responsibility which sadly we have not had on the Government side of the House during the past ten years.

When confronted with failure and administrative breakdown, Ministers have not accepted political responsibility for something which ultimately is their responsibility, as we did on this side of the House when we were in government. If the Government does not lead by example it should not expect people in the public service working to it to step into the breach. Ultimately, if the public does not receive a measurably better service, the project has failed.

This motion also discusses the key matter of data security. As shown by answers to parliamentary questions I tabled earlier this year, the Government has been extremely lax in its approach to data security. Deputy Coveney referred to this. More than 100 data storage devices belonging to the State have been lost or stolen. None of them was encrypted. We have no idea what personal, private or confidential information about citizens was on them. The Labour Party supports the proposal to move towards more enhanced e-Government and if this is to be done new forms of securing the data must be part and parcel of the contract, not with the customer but with the citizen. The encryption of sensitive data must be a fundamental part of encouraging people to go on-line to share information in the sure knowledge that the information they share as citizens is properly respected and safely assured.

See this speech in context