Terence Flanagan (Dublin North East, Fine Gael)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion and I thank our communications spokesperson, Deputy Coveney, for bringing it forward. I am pleased that agreement has been reached between the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Kitt, and Deputy Coveney to implement an agreed action plan on e-Government.

E-Government refers to the transaction of Government services, such as the making of payments to various Departments, on-line. Unfortunately, it has been successful in only a few instances. Until payments can be paid on-line to all Departments, the benefits of e-Government cannot be realised. However, i-Government, which is offered by most Departments, has been a success, allowing the user to print forms and complete them on-line.

Fine Gael supports the development of e-Government services. We realise, however, that certain members of the public such as the elderly prefer to conduct their business on a face-to-face basis with public servants. Such facilities should continue to be available. According to the Department of the Taoiseach, of 143 planned e-Government projects to date, only 86 are live, a success rate of 60%. A total of 45 projects are works in progress, while 24 have never commenced.

According to the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on e-Government, which was published last January, the total cost of the e-Government projects undertaken to date was €420 million, which was 20% over budget. In most cases, however, this included only the direct costs such as software and the employment of project consultants. The inclusion of the costs of engaging Civil Service staff on these projects would make the overrun much higher. The Comptroller and Auditor General identified the main failings of the Government's e-Government strategy as the lack of central leadership and oversight, particularly from the Departments of the Taoiseach and Finance, lack of specific targets for individual projects against which progress could be measured, and lack of strict budgetary mechanisms. Some projects took 25% longer to complete than planned.

The flagship project of the Government's strategy was the public service broker, which was envisaged as a one-stop system through which citizens could access all public services provided by the Government. The original estimate for the project was €14 million but its final cost was three times higher at €37 million. In addition, there are ongoing costs of some €15 million per year. Despite the high budget overrun, the service provided is limited and falls far short of its stated aim, according to the Comptroller and Auditor General's report.

Another disaster was the planned national health portal. This project was supposed to allow the public access to all health services through a single site. It was abandoned in 2005, however, after €2 million had been spent. Likewise, a driving licence applications facility and passport applications service were abandoned after public money was wasted on initial development. In addition, 24 out of 143 planned e-Government projects have not even started. We must learn from the mistakes that have been made not only in this area but also in the case of such projects as PPARS and electronic voting. Such failures must not recur.

On the positive side, substantial savings have been achieved as a consequence of the successful e-Government projects. For example, it is estimated that the Revenue has saved €49 million since the introduction of its on-line service. Some 125,000 queuing hours have been saved as a result of the introduction of the on-line facility for the payment of motor tax. I have used the motor tax website, www.motortax.ie, and found it useful. The expertise of those involved in the development of these successful systems should be harnessed for the purposes of forthcoming projects. The starting point of e-Government should be to put in place on-line systems to deal with applications for passports, driving licences, student grants, death certificates and additions to the electoral register.

In the action plan proposed for e-Government the name of the person who is ultimately responsible for implementing the project should be published. Clear and measurable objectives and a system of deadlines need to be put in place for each project. There should be annual reviews of e-Government projects, including the assessment of benefits, user satisfaction levels and comparison to other countries.

As Deputy Coveney's motion proposes, we should have a code of practice for the treatment of personal sensitive data, including restrictions on the use of laptops and BlackBerrys for databases. The last thing we need to read about in the newspapers is that laptops containing Government databases with the personal information of thousands of people have gone missing. We should also have restrictions on sending in the post databases with personal data. I am glad the above points are included in the motion agreed by Deputy Coveney and the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Kitt.

The Government has made many mistakes in the roll-out of e-Government, but it has also had success, particularly with the Revenue on-line and motor tax websites, and this should be acknowledged. I hope the lessons in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report can be taken on board and we can stop wasting taxpayers' money unnecessarily. I commend the motion to the House.

See this speech in context